Orth.—In our former discussions we have proved that God the Word
is immutable, and became incarnate not by being changed into flesh, but
by taking perfect human nature. The divine Scripture, and the teachers
of the churches and luminaries of the world have clearly taught us
that, after the union, He remained as He was, unmixed, impassible,
unchanged, uncircumscribed; and that He preserved unimpaired the nature
which He had taken. For the future then the subject before us is that
of His passion, and it will be a very profitable one, for thence have
been brought to us the waters of salvation.

Eran.—I am also of opinion that this discourse will be
beneficial. I shall not however consent to our former method, but I
propose myself to ask questions.

Orth.—And I will answer, without making any objection to the
change of method. He who has truth on his side, not only when he
questions but also when he is questioned, is supported by the might of
the truth. Ask then what you will.

Eran.—Who, according to your view, suffered the
passion?

Orth.—Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Eran.—Then a man gave us our salvation.

Orth.—No; for have we confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ was
only man?

Orth.—If He was nailed to the cross without a body, apply the
passion to the Godhead; but if he was made man by taking flesh, why
then do you exempt the passible from the passion and subject the
impassible to it?

Eran.—But the reason why He took flesh was that the impassible
might undergo the passion by means of the passible.

Orth.—You say impassible and apply passion to Him.

Eran.—I said that He took flesh to suffer.

Orth.—If He had had a nature capable of the Passion He would have
suffered without flesh; so the flesh becomes superfluous.

Eran.—The divine nature is immortal, and the nature of the flesh
mortal, so the immortal was united with the mortal, that through it He
might taste of death.

Orth.—That which is by nature immortal does not undergo death,
even when conjoined with the mortal; this is easy to see.

Eran.—Prove it; and remove the difficulty.

Orth.—Do you assert that the human soul was immortal, or
mortal?

Eran.—Immortal.

Orth.—And is the body mortal or immortal?

Eran.—Indubitably mortal.

Orth.—And do we say that man consists of these
natures?

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—So the immortal is conjoined with the mortal?

Eran.—True.

Orth.—But when the connexion or union is at an end, the mortal
submits to the law of death, while the soul remains immortal though sin
has introduced death, or do you not hold death to be a
penalty?

Eran.—So divine Scripture teaches. For we learn that when God
forbade Adam to partake of the tree of knowledge He added “on the
day that ye eat thereof ye shall surely die.”14131413Gen. ii. 17

Orth.—Then death is the punishment of them that have
sinned?

Eran.—Agreed.

Orth.—Why then, when soul and body have both sinned together,
does the body alone undergo the punishment of death?

Eran.—It was the body that cast its evil eye upon the tree, and
stretched forth its hands, and plucked the forbidden fruit. It was the
mouth that bit it with the teeth, and ground it small, and then the
gullet committed it to the belly, and the belly digested it, and
delivered it to the liver; and the liver turned what it had received
into blood and passed it on to the hollow vein14141414 The
vena cava, by which the blood returns to the heart. The
physiology of Eranistes would be held in the main
“orthodox” even now, and shews that Theodoret was well
abreast of the science accepted before the discovery of the circulation
of the blood.
and the vein to the adjacent parts and they through the rest, and so
the theft of the forbidden food pervaded the whole body. Very properly
then the body alone underwent the punishment of sin.

Orth.—You have given us a physiological disquisition on the
nature of food, on all the parts that it goes through and on the
modifications to which it is subject before it is assimilated with the
body. But there is one point that you have refused to observe, and that
is that the body goes through none of these processes which you have
mentioned without the soul. When bereft of the soul which is its yoke
mate the body lies breathless, voiceless, motionless; the eye sees
neither wrong nor aright; no sound of voices reaches the ears, the
hands cannot stir; the feet cannot walk; the body is like an instrument
without music. How then can you say that only the body sinned when the
body without the soul cannot even take a breath?

Eran.—The body does indeed receive life from the soul, and it
furnishes the soul with the penal possession of sin.

Orth.—How, and in what manner?

Eran.—Through the eyes it makes it see amiss; through the ears it
makes it hear unprofitable sounds; and through the tongue utter
injurious words, and through all the other parts act ill.

Orth.—Then I suppose we may say Blessed are the deaf; blessed are
they that have lost their sight and have been deprived of their other
faculties, for the souls of men so incapacitated have neither part nor
lot in the wickedness of the body. And why, O most sagacious sir, have
you mentioned those functions of the body which are culpable, and said
nothing about the laudable? It is possible to look with eyes of love
and of kindliness; it is possible to wipe away a tear of compunction,
to hear oracles of God, to bend the ear to the poor, to praise the
Creator with the tongue, to give good lessons to our neighbour, to move
the hand in mercy, and in a word to use the parts of the body for
complete acquisition of goodness.

Eran.—This is all true.

Orth.—Therefore the observance and 218transgression of law is common
to both soul and body.

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—It seems to me that the soul takes the leading part in
both, since it uses reasoning before the body acts.

Eran.—In what sense do you say this?

Orth.—First of all the mind makes, as it were, a sketch of virtue
or of vice, and then gives to one or the other form with appropriate
material and colour, using for its instruments the parts of the
body.

Eran.—So it seems.

Orth.—If then the soul sins with the body; nay rather takes the
lead in the sin, for to it is entrusted the bridling and direction of
the animal part, why, as it shares the sin, does it not also share the
punishment?

Eran.—But how were it possible for the immortal soul to share
death?

Orth.—Yet it were just that after sharing the transgression, it
should share the chastisement.

Eran.—Yes, just.

Orth.—But it did not do so.

Eran.—Certainly not.

Orth.—At least in the life to come it will be sent with the body
to Gehenna.

Eran.—So He said “Fear not them which kill the body, but
are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to
destroy both soul and body in hell.”14151415Matt. x. 28

Orth.—Therefore in this life it escapes death, as being immortal;
in the life to come, it will be punished, not by undergoing death, but
by suffering chastisement in life.

Eran.—That is what the divine Scripture says.

Orth.—It is then impossible for the immortal nature to undergo
death.

Eran.—So it appears.

Orth.—How then do you say, God the Word tasted death? For if that
which was created immortal is seen to be incapable of becoming mortal,
how is it possible for him that is without creation and eternally
immortal, Creator of mortal and immortal natures alike, to partake of
death?

Eran.—We too know that His nature is immortal, but we say that He
shared death in the flesh.

Orth.—But we have plainly shewn that it is in no wise possible
for that which is by nature immortal to share death, for even the soul
created together with, and conjoined with, the body and sharing in its
sin, does not share death with it, on account of the immortality of its
nature alone. But let us look at this same position from another point
of view.

Eran.—There is every reason why we should leave no means untried
to arrive at the truth.

Orth.—Let us then examine the matter thus. Do we assert that of
virtue and vice some are teachers and some are followers?

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—And do we say that the teacher of virtue deserves greater
recompense?

Orth.—And what part shall we assign to the devil, that of teacher
or disciple?

Eran.—Teacher of teachers, for he himself is father and teacher
of all iniquity.

Orth.—And who of men became his first disciples?

Eran.—Adam and Eve.

Orth.—And who received the sentence of death?

Eran.—Adam and all his race.

Orth.—Then the disciples were punished for the bad lessons they
had learnt, but the teacher, whom we have just declared to deserve
two-fold and three-fold chastisement, got off the
punishment?

Eran.—Apparently.

Orth.—And though this so came about we both acknowledge and
declare that the Judge is just.

Eran.—Certainly.

Orth.—But, being just, why did He not exact an account from him
of his evil teaching?

Eran.—He prepared for him the unquenchable flame of Gehenna, for,
He says, “Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared
for the devil and his angels.”14161416Matt. xxv. 41 And the
reason why he did not here share death with his disciples is because he
has an immortal nature.

Orth.—Then even the greatest transgressors cannot incur death if
they have an immortal nature.

Eran.—Agreed.

Orth.—If then even the very inventor and teacher of iniquity did
not incur death on account of the immortality of his nature, do you not
shudder at the thought of saying that the fount of immortality and
righteousness shared death?

Eran.—Had we said that he underwent 219the passion involuntarily,
there would have been some just ground for the accusation which you
bring against us. But if the passion which is preached by us was
spontaneous and the death voluntary, it becomes you, instead of
accusing us, to praise the immensity of His love to man. For He
suffered because He willed to suffer, and shared death because He
wished it.

Orth.—You seem to me to be quite ignorant of the divine nature,
for the Lord God wishes nothing inconsistent with His nature, and is
able to do all that He wishes, and what He wishes is appropriate and
agreeable to His own nature.

Orth.—In expressing yourself thus indefinitely you include even
what belongs to the Devil, for to say absolutely all things is to name
together not only good, but its opposite.

Eran.—But did not the noble Job speak absolutely when he said
“I know that thou canst do all things and with thee nothing is
impossible”?14181418Job x. 13, lxx.

Orth.—If you read what the just man said before, you will see the
meaning of the one passage from the other, for he says “Remember,
I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay and wilt thou bring
me into dust again? Hast thou not poured me out as milk and curdled me
like cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh and hast fenced
me with bones and sinews, thou hast granted me life and
favour.”14191419Job x.
9–12

And then he
adds:—

“Having this in myself I
know that thou canst do all things and that with thee nothing is
impossible.”14201420Job x. 13, lxx. Is it not
therefore all that belongs to these things that he alleges to belong to
the incorruptible nature, to the God of the universe?

Eran.—Nothing is impossible to Almighty God.

Orth.—Then according to your definition sin is possible to
Almighty God?

Eran.—By no means.

Orth.—Wherefore?

Eran.—Because He does not wish it.

Orth.—Wherefore does He not wish it?

Eran.—Because sin is foreign to His nature.

Orth.—Then there are many things which He cannot do, for there
are many kinds of transgression.

Eran.—Nothing of this kind can be wished or done by
God.

Orth.—Nor can those things which are contrary to the divine
nature.

Eran.—What are they?

Orth.—As, for instance, we have learnt that God is intelligent
and true Light.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—And we could not call Him darkness or say that He wished to
become, or could become, darkness.

Eran.—By no means.

Orth.—Again, the Divine Scripture calls His nature
invisible.

Eran.—It does.

Orth.—And we could never say that It is capable of being made
visible.

Eran.—No, surely.

Orth.—Nor comprehensible.

Eran.—No; for He is not so.

Orth.—No; for He is incomprehensible, and altogether
unapproachable.

Eran.—You are right.

Orth.—And He that is could never become non-existent.

Eran.—Away with the thought!

Orth.—Nor yet could the Father become Son.

Eran.—Impossible.

Orth.—Nor yet could the unbegotten become begotten.

Eran.—How could He.

Orth.—And the Father could never become Son?

Eran.—By no means.

Orth.—Nor could the Holy Ghost ever become Son or
Father.

Eran.—All this is impossible.

Orth.—And we shall find many other things of the same kind, which
are similarly impossible, for the Eternal will not become of time, nor
the Uncreate created and made, nor the infinite finite, and the
like.

Eran.—None of these is possible.

Orth.—So we have found many things which are impossible to
Almighty God.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—But not to be able in any of these respects is proof not of
weakness, but of infinite power, and to be able would certainly be
proof not of power but of impotence.

Eran.—How do you say this?

Orth.—Because each one of these proclaims the unchangeable and
invariable character of God. For the impossibility of good becoming
evil signifies the immensity of the goodness; and that He that is just
should never become unjust, nor He that is true a liar, exhibits the
stability and the strength that there is in truth and righteousness.
Thus the true light could never become darkness; He that is could never
become non220existent, for the existence is perpetual and the light is
naturally invariable. And so, after examining all other examples, you
will find that the not being able is declaratory of the highest power.
That things of this kind are impossible in the case of God, the divine
Apostle also both perceived and laid down, for in his Epistle to the
Hebrews14211421 Cf.
note on Page 37. From the middle of the IIIrd century onward we find
acceptation of the Pauline authorship. Among writers who quote the Ep.
as St. Paul’s are Cyril of Jerusalem, the two Gregories, Basil,
and Chrysostom, as well as Theodoret. he says, “that by two
immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie we might
have a strong consolation.”14221422Heb. vi. 18 He shews
that this incapacity is not weakness, but very power, for he asserts
Him to be so true that it is impossible for there to be even a lie in
Him. So the power of truth is signified through its want of power. And
writing to the blessed Timothy, the Apostle adds “It is a
faithful saying, for if we be dead with Him we shall also live with
Him, if we suffer we shall also reign with Him; if we deny Him He will
also deny us, if we believe not yet He abideth faithful, He cannot deny
Himself.”142314232 Tim. ii.
11–13 Again then the
phrase “He cannot” is indicative of infinite power, for
even though all men deny Him He says God is Himself, and cannot exist
otherwise than in His own nature, for His being is indestructible. This
is what is meant by the words “He cannot deny Himself.”
Therefore the impossibility of change for the worse proves infinity of
power.

Eran.—This is quite true and in harmony with the divine
words.

Orth.—Granted then that with God many things are
impossible,—everything, that is, which is repugnant to the divine
nature,—how comes it that while you omit all the other qualities
which belong to the divine nature, goodness, righteousness, truth,
invisibility, incomprehensibility, infinity, and eternity, and the rest
of the attributes which we assert to be proper to God, you maintain
that His immortality and impassibility alone are subject to change, and
in them concede the possibility of variation and give to God a capacity
indicative of weakness?

Eran.—We have learnt this from the divine Scripture. The divine
John exclaims “God so loved the world that He gave His only
begotten Son,”14241424John iii. 16 and the divine
Paul, “For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by
the death of His Son, much more being reconciled we shall be saved by
His life.”14251425Romans v. 10

Orth.—Of course all this is true, for these are divine oracles,14261426 cf. note on page 155. but remember what we have often
confessed.

Eran.—What?

Orth.—We have confessed that God the Word the Son of God did not
appear without a body, but assumed perfect human nature.

Eran.—Yes; this we have confessed.

Orth.—And He was called Son of Man because He took a body and
human soul.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is verily our God; for of
these two natures the one was His from everlasting and the other He
assumed.

Eran.—Indubitably.

Orth.—While, then, as man He underwent the passion, as God He
remained incapable of suffering.

Eran.—How then does the divine Scripture say that the Son of God
suffered?

Orth.—Because the body which suffered was His body. But let us
look at the matter thus; when we hear the divine Scripture saying
“And it came to pass when Isaac was old his eyes were dim so that
he could not see,”14271427Gen. xxvii. 1 whither is our
mind carried and on what does it rest, on Isaac’s soul or on his
body?

Eran.—Of course on his body.

Orth.—Do we then conjecture that his soul also shared in the
affection of blindness?

Eran.—Certainly not.

Orth.—We assert that only his body was deprived of the sense of
sight?

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—And again when we hear Amaziah saying to the prophet Amos,
“Oh thou seer go flee away into the land of Judah,”14281428Amos vii. 12 and Saul enquiring: “Tell me I
pray thee where the seer’s house is,”142914291 Sam. ix. 18 we understand nothing bodily.

Eran.—Certainly not.

Orth.—And yet the words used are significant of the health of the
organ of sight.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—Yet we know that the power of the Spirit when given to
purer souls inspires prophetic grace and causes them to see even hidden
things, and, in consequence of their thus seeing, they are called seers
and beholders.

Eran.—What you say is true.

Orth.—And let us consider this too.

Eran.—What?

Orth.—When we hear the story of the divine evangelists narrating
how they brought to God a man sick of the palsy, laid upon a
221bed, do we say
that this was paralysis of the parts of the soul or of the
body?

Eran.—Plainly of the body.

Orth.—And when while reading the Epistle to the Hebrews we light
upon the passage where the Apostle says “Wherefore lift up the
hands which hang down and the feeble knees and make straight paths for
your feet lest that which is lame be turned out of the way, but let it
rather be healed,”14301430Heb. xii. 12,
13 do we say that
the divine Apostle said these things about the parts of the
body?

Eran.—No.

Orth.—Shall we say that he was for removing the feebleness and
infirmity of the soul and stimulating the disciples to
manliness?

Eran.—Obviously.

Orth.—But we do not find these things distinguished in the divine
Scripture, for in describing the blindness of Isaac he made no
reference to the body, but spoke of Isaac as absolutely blind, nor in
describing the prophets as seers and beholders did he say that their
souls saw and beheld what was hidden, but mentioned the persons
themselves.

Eran.—Yes; this is so.

Orth.—And he did not point out that the body of the paralytic was
palsied, but called the man a paralytic.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—And even the divine Apostle made no special mention of the
souls, though it was these that he purposed to strengthen and to
rouse.

Eran.—No; he did not.

Orth.—But when we examine the meaning of the words, we understand
which belongs to the soul and which to the body.

Eran.—And very naturally; for God made us reasonable
beings.

Orth.—Then let us make use of this reasoning faculty in the case
of our Maker and Saviour, and let us recognise what belongs to His
Godhead and what to His manhood.

Eran.—But by doing this we shall destroy the supreme
union.

Orth.—In the case of Isaac, of the prophets, of the man sick of
the palsy, and of the rest, we did so without destroying the natural
union of the soul and of the body; we did not even separate the souls
from their proper bodies, but by reason alone distinguished what
belonged to the soul and what to the body. Is it not then monstrous
that while we take this course in the case of souls and bodies, we
should refuse to do so in the case of our Saviour, and confound natures
which differ not in the same proportion as soul from body, but in as
vast a degree as the temporal from the eternal and the Creator from the
created?

Eran.—The divine Scripture says that the Son of God underwent the
passion.

Orth.—We deny that it was suffered by any other, but none the
less, taught by the divine Scripture, we know that the nature of the
Godhead is impassible. We are told of impassibility and of passion, of
manhood and of Godhead, and we therefore attribute the passion to the
passible body, and confess that no passion was undergone by the nature
that was impassible.

Eran.—Then a body won our salvation for us.

Orth.—Yes; but not a mere man’s body, but that of our Lord
Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. If you regard this body as
insignificant and of small account, how can you hold its type to be an
object of worship and a means of salvation? and how can the archetype
be contemptible and insignificant of that of which the type is adorable
and honourable?

Eran.—I do not look on the body as of small account, but I object
to dividing it from the Godhead.

Orth.—We, my good sir, do not divide the union but we regard the
peculiar properties of the natures, and I am sure that in a moment you
will take the same view.

Eran.—You talk like a prophet.

Orth.—No; not like a prophet, but as knowing the power of truth.
But now answer me this. When you hear the Lord saying “I and my
Father are one,”14311431John x. 30 and “He
that hath seen me hath seen the Father,”14321432John xiv. 9 do you say that this refers to the flesh
or to the Godhead?

Eran.—How can the flesh and the Father possibly be of one
substance?

Orth.—Then these passages indicate the Godhead?

Eran.—True.

Orth.—And so with the text, “In the beginning was the Word
and the Word was God,”14331433John i. 1 and the
like.

Eran.—Agreed.

Orth.—Again when the divine Scripture says, “Jesus
therefore being wearied with his journey sat thus on the well,”14341434John iv. 6 of what is the weariness to be
understood, of the Godhead or of the body?

Orth.—But then you directly contradict the exclamation of the
prophet “He fainteth not neither is weary; there is no searching
of His understanding. He giveth power to the faint and to them that
have no might he increaseth strength.”14351435Isaiah xl. 28,
29.
cf. Sept.
And a little further on “But they that wait upon the Lord shall
renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings as eagles, they
shall run and not be weary and they shall walk and not faint.”14361436Isaiah xl. 31 Now how can He who bestows upon others
the boon of freedom from weariness and want, possibly be himself
subject to hunger and thirst?

Eran.—I have said over and over again that God is impassible, and
free from all want, but after the incarnation He became capable of
suffering.

Orth.—But did He do this by admitting the sufferings in His
Godhead, or by permitting the passible nature to undergo its natural
sufferings and by suffering proclaim that what was seen was no
unreality, but was really assumed of human nature? But now let us look
at the matter thus: we say that the divine nature was
uncircumscribed.

Eran.—Aye.

Orth.—And uncircumscribed nature is circumscribed by
none.

Eran.—Of course not.

Orth.—It therefore needs no transition for it is
everywhere.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—And that which needs no transition needs not to
travel.

Eran.—That is clear.

Orth.—And that which does not travel does not grow
weary.

Eran.—No.

Orth.—It follows then that the divine nature, which is
uncircumscribed, and needs not to travel, was not weary.

Eran.—But the divine Scripture says that Jesus was weary, and
Jesus is God; “And our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things.”143714371 Cor. viii.
6

Orth.—But the exact expression of the divine Scripture is that
Jesus “was wearied” not “is wearied.”14381438 The text of John iv. 6
is κεκοπιακὼς
ἐκαθέζετο, i.e., after being weary sate down. κοπιῶν
ἐκαθέζετο would = “while being weary sate down.” The force
of the passage seems to be that Scripture states our Lord to have been
wearied once,—not to be wearied now; though of course in
classical Greek λέγει (historicè) αὐτὸν
κοπιᾶν might
mean “said that he was in a state of weariness.” We must consider how one and the other
can be applied to the same person.

Eran.—Well; try to point this out, for you are always for forcing
on us the distinction of terms.

Orth.—I think that even a barbarian might easily make this
distinction. The union of unlike natures being conceded, the person of
Christ on account of the union receives both; to each nature its own
properties are attributed; to the uncircumscribed immunity from
weariness, to that which is capable of transition and travel weariness.
For travelling is the function of the feet; of the muscles to be
strained by over exercise.

Eran.—There is no controversy about these being bodily
affections.

Orth.—Well then; the prediction which I made, and you scoffed at,
has come true; for look; you have shewn us what belongs to manhood, and
what belongs to Godhead.

Eran.—But I have not divided one son into two.

Orth.—Nor do we, my friend; but giving heed to the difference of
the natures, we consider what befits godhead, and what is proper to a
body.

Eran.—This distinction is not the teaching of the divine
Scripture; it says that the Son of God died. So the
Apostle;—“For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to
God by the death of His Son.”14391439Rom. v. 10 And he
says that the Lord was raised from the dead for “God” he
says “raised the Lord from the dead.”14401440Acts xiii. 30

Orth.—And when the divine Scripture says “And devout men
carried Stephen to his burial and made great lamentation over
him”14411441Acts viii. 2 would any one say that his soul was
committed to the grave as well as his body?

Eran.—Of course not.

Orth.—And when you hear the Patriarch Jacob saying “Bury me
with my Fathers,”14421442Gen. xlix. 29 do you suppose
this refers to the body or to the soul?

Eran.—To the body; without question.

Orth.—Now read what follows.

Eran.—“There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife. There
they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife and there I buried
Leah.”14431443Gen. xlix. 31

Orth.—Now, in the passages which you have just read, the divine
Scripture makes no mention of the body, but as far as the words used
go, signifies soul as well as body. We however make the proper
distinction and say that the souls of the patriarchs were immortal, and
that only their bodies were buried in the double cave.14441444 “The Machpelah,” always in Hebrew with the
article הַטַּכְפֵלה
= “the double (cave).” It is interesting to
contrast the heathen idea, that the shadow goes to Hades while the self
is identified with the body, with the Christian belief, that the self
lives while the body is buried e.g. Homer (Il. i. 4) says that while
the famous “wrath” sent many heroes’ souls to Hades,
it made “them” a prey to dogs and birds. cf. xxiii.
72. “ψυχαὶ
εἰδωλα
καμόντων.”

Orth.—And when we read in the Acts how Herod slew James the
brother of John with a sword,14451445Acts xii. 2 we are not likely
to hold that his soul died.

Eran.—No; how could we? We remember the Lord’s warning
“Fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the
soul.”14461446Matt. x. 28

Orth.—But does it not seem to you impious and monstrous in the
case of mere men to avoid the invariable connexion of soul and body,
and in the case of scriptural references to death and burial, to
distinguish in thought the soul from the body and connect them only
with the body, while in trust in the teaching of the Lord you hold the
soul to be immortal, and then when you hear of the passion of the Son
of God to follow quite a different course? Are you justified in making
no mention of the body to which the passion belongs, and in
representing the divine nature which is impassible, immutable and
immortal as mortal and passible? While all the while you know that if
the nature of God the Word is capable of suffering, the assumption of
the body was superfluous.

Eran.—We have learnt from the Divine Scriptures that the Son of
God suffered.

Orth.—But the divine apostle interprets the Passion, and shews
what nature suffered.

Eran.—Show me this at once and clear the matter up.

Orth.—Are you not acquainted with the passage in the Epistle to
the Hebrews in which the divine Paul14471447 Vide note on Pages 37 and 220. says
“For which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren saying
‘I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the
Church will I sing praise unto Thee.’ And again, ‘Behold I
and the children which God hath given me.’”14481448Heb. ii. 11, 12,
13

Eran.—Yes, I know this, but this does not give us what you
promised.

Orth.—Yes: even these suggest what I promised to shew. The word
brotherhood signifies kinship, and the kinship is due to the assumption
of the nature, and the assumption openly proclaims the impassibility of
the Godhead. But to understand this the more plainly read what
follows.

Eran.—“Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of
flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same that
through death He might destroy him that hath the power of
death…and deliver them who through fear of death were all their
life subject to bondage.”14491449Heb. ii. 14,
15

Orth.—This, I think, needs no explanation; it teaches clearly the
mystery of the œconomy.

Eran.—I see nothing here of what you promised to
prove.

Orth.—Yet the divine Apostle teaches plainly that the Creator,
pitying this nature not only seized cruelly by death, but throughout
all life made death’s slave, effected the resurrection through a
body for our bodies, and, by means of a mortal body, undid the dominion
of death; for since His own nature was immortal He righteously wished
to stay the sovereignty of death by taking the first fruits of them
that were subject to death, and while He kept these first fruits (i.e.
the body) blameless and free from sin, on the one hand He gave death
license to lay hands on it and so satisfy its insatiability, while on
the other, for the sake of the wrong done to this body, he put a stop
to the unrighteous sovereignty usurped over all the rest of men. These
firstfruits unrighteously engulfed He raised again and will make the
race to follow them.

Set this explanation side by
side with the words of the Apostle, and you will understand the
impassibility of the Godhead.

Eran.—In what has been read there is no proof of the divine
impassibility.

Orth.—Nay: does not the statement of the divine Apostle, that the
reason of His making the children partakers of the flesh and blood was
that through death He might destroy him that hath the power of death,
distinctly signify the impassibility of the Godhead, and the
passibility of the flesh, and that because the divine nature could not
suffer He assumed the nature that could and through it destroyed the
power of the devil?

Eran.—How did He destroy the power of the devil and the dominion
of death through the flesh?

Orth.—What arms did the devil use at the beginning when he
enslaved the nature of men?

Eran.—The means by which he took captive him who had been
constituted citizen of Paradise, was sin.

Orth.—And what punishment did God assign for the transgression of
the commandment?

Orth.—War then was waged against human nature by sin. Sin seduced
them that obeyed it to slavery, brought them to its vile father, and
delivered them to its very bitter offspring.

Eran.—That is plain.

Orth.—So with reason the Creator, with the intention of
destroying either power, assumed the nature against which war was being
waged, and, by keeping it clear of all sin, both set it free from the
sovereignty of the devil, and, by its means, destroyed the
devil’s dominion. For since death is the punishment of sinners,
and death unrighteously and against the divine law seized the sinless
body of the Lord, He first raised up that which was unlawfully
detained, and then promised release to them that were with justice
imprisoned.

Eran.—But how do you think it just that the resurrection of Him
who was unlawfully detained should be shared by the bodies which had
been righteously delivered to death?

Orth.—And how do you think it just that, when it was Adam who
transgressed the commandment, his race should follow their
forefather?

Eran.—Although the race had not participated in the famous
transgression, yet it committed other sins, and for this cause incurred
death.

Orth.—Yet not sinners only but just men, patriarchs, prophets,
apostles, and men who have shone bright in many kinds of virtue have
come into death’s meshes.

Eran.—Yes; for how could a family sprung of mortal parents remain
immortal? Adam after the transgression and the divine sentence, and
after coming under the power of death, knew his wife, and was called
father; having himself become mortal he was made father of mortals;
reasonably then all who have received mortal nature follow their
forefather.

Orth.—You have shewn very well the reason of our being partakers
of death. The same however must be granted about the resurrection, for
the remedy must be meet for the disease. When the head of the race was
doomed, all the race was doomed with him, and so when the Saviour
destroyed the curse, human nature won freedom; and just as they that
shared Adam’s nature followed him in his going down into Hades,
so all the nature of men will share in newness of life with the Lord
Christ in His resurrection.

Eran.—The decrees of the Church must be given not only
declaratorily but demonstratively. Tell me then how these doctrines are
taught in the divine Scripture.

Orth.—Listen to the Apostle writing to the Romans, and through
them teaching all mankind: “For if through the offence of one
many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which
is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was
by one that sinned, so is the gift; for the judgment was by one to
condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they
which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall
reign in life by one, Jesus Christ”14501450Rom. v. 15, 16,
17
and again: “Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon
all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free
gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one
man’s disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of
one shall many be made righteous.”14511451Rom. v. 18,
19
And when introducing to the Corinthians his argument about the
resurrection he shortly reveals to them the mystery of the
œconomy, and says: “But now is Christ risen from the dead
and become the first fruits of them which slept. For since by man came
death by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all
die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”145214521 Cor. xv. 20, 21,
22 So I have brought you proofs from the
divine oracles. Now look at what belongs to Adam compared with what
belongs to Christ, the disease with the remedy, the wound with the
salve, the sin with the wealth of righteousness, the ban with the
blessing, the doom with the delivery, the transgression with the
observance, the death with the life, hell with the kingdom, Adam with
Christ, the man with the Man. And yet the Lord Christ is not only man
but eternal God, but the divine Apostle names Him from the nature which
He assumed, because it is in this nature that he compares Him with
Adam. The justification, the struggle, the victory, the death, the
resurrection are all of this human nature; it is this nature which we
share with Him; in this nature they who have exercised themselves
beforehand in the citizenship of the kingdom shall reign with Him. Of
this nature I spoke, not dividing the Godhead, but referring to what is
proper to the manhood.

Eran.—You have gone through long discussions on this point, and
have strengthened your argument by scriptural testimony, but if the
passion was really of the flesh, how is it 225that when he praises the
divine love to men, the Apostle exclaims, “He that spared not His
own Son but delivered Him up for us all,”14531453Rom. xiii. 32
what son does he say was delivered up?

Orth.—Watch well your words. There is one Son of God, wherefore
He is called only begotten.

Eran.—If then there is one Son of God, the divine Apostle called
him own Son.

Orth.—When then you hear God saying to Abraham “Because
thou hast not withheld thy son thy only son,”14541454Gen. xxii. 16 do you allege that Isaac was
slain?

Eran.—Of course not.

Orth.—And yet God said “Thou hast not withheld,” and
the God of all is true.

Eran.—The expression “thou hast not withheld” refers
to the readiness of Abraham, for he was ready to sacrifice the lad, but
God prevented it.

Orth.—Well; in the story of Abraham you were not content with the
letter, but unfolded it and made the meaning clear. In precisely the
same manner examine the meaning of the words of the Apostle. You will
then see that it was by no means the divine nature which was not
withheld, but the flesh nailed to the Cross. And it is easy to perceive
the truth even in the type. Do you regard Abraham’s sacrifice as
a type of the oblation offered on behalf of the world?

Eran.—Not at all, nor yet can I make words spoken rhetorically in
the churches a rule of faith.

Orth.—You ought by all means to follow teachers of the Church,
but, since you improperly oppose yourself to these, hear the Saviour
Himself when addressing the Jews; “Your Father Abraham rejoiced
to see my day and he saw it and was glad.”14551455John viii. 56 Note that the Lord calls His passion
“a day.”

Eran.—I accept the Lord’s testimony and do not doubt the
type.

Orth.—Now compare the type with the reality and you will see the
impassibility of the Godhead even in the type. Both in the former and
in the latter there is a Father; both in the former and the latter a
well beloved Son, each bearing the material for the sacrifice. The one
bore the wood, the other the cross upon his shoulders. It is said that
the top of the hill was dignified by the sacrifice of both. There is a
correspondence moreover between the number of days and nights and the
resurrection which followed, for after Isaac had been slain by his
father’s willing heart, on the third day after the bountiful God
had ordered the deed to be done, he rose to new life at the voice of
Him who loves mankind.14561456 The
sacrifice of Isaac so far as his father’s part in it is concerned
is regarded as having actually taken place at the moment of his felt
willingness to obey. In the interval of the journey to Mount Moriah
Isaac is dead to his father. A lamb was seen
caught in a thicket, furnishing an image of the cross, and slain
instead of the lad. Now if this is a type of the reality, and in the
type the only begotten Son did not undergo sacrifice, but a lamb was
substituted and laid upon the altar and completed the mystery of the
oblation, why then in the reality do you hesitate to assign the passion
to the flesh, and to proclaim the impassibility of the
Godhead?

Eran.—In your observations upon this type you represent Isaac as
living again at the divine command. There is nothing therefore unseemly
if, fitting the reality to the type, we declare that God the Word
suffered and came to life again.

Orth.—I have said again and again that it is quite impossible for
the type to match the archetypal reality in every respect, and this may
also be easily understood in the present instance. Isaac and the lamb,
as touching the difference of their natures, suit the image, but as
touching the separation of their divided persons14571457ὑπόστασις they do so no longer. We preach so close
an union of Godhead and of manhood as to understand one person14581458πρόσωπον undivided, and to acknowledge the same
to be both God and man, visible and invisible, circumscribed and
uncircumscribed, and we apply to one of the persons all the attributes
which are indicative alike of Godhead and of manhood. Now since the
lamb, an unreasoning being, and not gifted with the divine image,14591459 It
is to be noted that Theodoret thus apparently regards the divine image
as consisting in the intelligence or λόγος. And in
the implication that Isaac had the divine image, he expresses the
Scriptural view that this was marred, not lost, by the fall. could not possibly prefigure the
restoration to life, the two divide between them the type of the
mystery of the œconomy, and while one furnishes the image of
death, the other supplies that of the resurrection. We find precisely
the same thing in the Mosaic sacrifices, for in them too may be seen
a 226type
outlined in anticipation of the passion of salvation.

Eran.—What Mosaic sacrifice foreshadows the reality?

Orth.—All the Old Testament, so to say, is a type of the New. It
is for this reason that the divine Apostle plainly
says—“the Law having a shadow of good things to
come”14601460Heb. x. 1 and again “now all these things
happened unto them for ensamples.”146114611 Cor. x. 11
The image of the archetype is very distinctly exhibited by the lamb
slain in Egypt, and by the red heifer burned without the camp, and
moreover referred to by the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
where he writes “Wherefore Jesus also that he might sanctify the
people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.”14621462Heb. xiii. 12

But of this no more for the
present. I will however mention the sacrifice in which two goats were
offered, the one being slain, and the other let go.14631463Lev. xvi In these two goats there is an
anticipative image of the two natures of the Saviour;—in the one
let go, of the impassible Godhead, in the one slain, of the passible
manhood.

Eran.—Do you not think it irreverent to liken the Lord to
goats?

Orth.—Which do you think is a fitter object of avoidance and
hate, a serpent or a goat?

Eran.—A serpent is plainly hateful, for it injures those who come
within its reach, and often hurts people who do it no harm. A goat on
the other hand comes, according to the Law, in the list of animals that
are clean and may be eaten.

Orth.—Now hear the Lord likening the passion of salvation to the
brazen serpent. He says: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever
believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”14641464John iii. 14,
15 If a brazen serpent was a type of the
crucified Saviour, of what impropriety are we guilty in comparing the
passion of salvation with the sacrifice of the goats?

Orth.—But the blessed Paul calls Him “sin”146714672 Cor. v. 21 and “curse.”14681468Gal. iii. 13 As curse therefore He satisfies the
type of the accursed serpent; as sin He explains the figure of the
sacrifice of the goats, for on behalf of sin, in the Law, a goat, and
not a lamb, was offered. So the Lord in the Gospels likened the just to
lambs, but sinners to kids;14691469Matt. xxv. 32 and since He was
ordained to undergo the passion not only on behalf of just men, but
also of sinners, He appropriately foreshadows His own offering through
lambs and goats.

Eran.—But the type of the two goats leads us to think of two
persons.

Orth.—The passibility of the manhood and the impassibility of the
Godhead could not possibly be prefigured both at once by one goat. The
one which was slain could not have shewn the living nature. So two were
taken in order to explain the two natures. The same lesson may well be
learnt from another sacrifice.

Eran.—From which?

Orth.—From that in which the lawgiver bids two pure birds be
offered—one to be slain, and the other, after having been dipped
in the blood of the slain, to be let go. Here also we see a type of the
Godhead and of the manhood—of the manhood slain and of the
godhead appropriating the passion.

Eran.—You have given us many types, but I object to
enigmas.

Orth.—Yet the divine Apostle says that the narratives are
types.14701470Gal. iv. 24et
seqq. Hagar is called a type of the old
covenant; Sarah is likened to the heavenly Jerusalem; Ishmael is a type
of Israel, and Isaac of the new people. So you must accuse the loud
trumpet of the Spirit for giving its enigmas for us all.

Eran.—Though you urge any number of arguments, you will never
induce me to divide the passion. I have heard the voice of the angel
saying to Mary and her companions, “Come, see the place where the
Lord lay.”14711471Matt. xxviii.
6

Orth.—This is quite in accordance with our common customs; we
speak of the part by the name which belongs to all the parts. When we
go into the churches where are buried the holy apostles or prophets or
martyrs, we ask from time to time, “Who is it who lies in the
shrine?” and those who are able to give us information say in
reply, Thomas, it may be, the Apostle,14721472 St. Thomas was buried at Edessa. Soc. iv. 18, Chrys. Hom. in Heb.
26. or John the Baptist,14731473 Vide p. 96. or Stephen the protomartyr,14741474 St. Stephen’s remains were said to have been found at
Jerusalem, and widely dispersed. cf. Dict. Christ. Ant. II.
1929. or any other of the saints, mentioning
them by name, though perhaps only a few scanty relics of them lie here.
But no one who hears these names which are common to both body and soul
will imagine that the souls also are shut up in the chests; everybody
knows that the chests contain only the bodies or even small portions of
the bodies. 227The holy angel spoke in precisely the same manner when he
described the body by the name of the person.

Eran.—But how can you prove that the angel spoke to the women
about the Lord’s body?

Orth.—In the first place, the tomb itself suffices to settle the
question, for to a tomb is committed neither soul nor Godhead whose
nature is uncircumscribed; tombs are made for bodies. Furthermore this
is plainly taught by the divine Scripture, for so the holy Matthew
narrates the event, “When the even was come there came a rich man
of Arimathæa named Joseph who also himself was Jesus’
disciple: he went to Pilate and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate
commanded the body to be delivered, and when Joseph had taken the body,
he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb,
which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the
door of the sepulchre and departed.”14751475Matt. xxvii.
57–60
See how often he mentions the body in order to stop the mouths of them
who blaspheme the Godhead. The same course is pursued by the thrice
blessed Mark, whose narrative I will also quote. “And now when
the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day
before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathæa, an honourable counsellor,
which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto
Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. And Pilate marvelled if He were
already dead; and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether
He had been any while dead. And when he knew it of the centurion, he
gave the body to Joseph, and he brought fine linen, and took him down,
and wrapped Him in the linen, and laid Him in a sepulchre,”14761476Mark xv.
42–46 and so on. Observe with admiration, the
harmony of terms, and how consistently and continuously the word body
is introduced. The illustrious Luke, too, relates just in the same way
how Joseph begged the body and after he had received it treated it with
due rites.14771477Luke xxiii.
50 et
Seqq. By the divine John we are told
yet more, “Joseph of Arimathæa being a disciple of Jesus,
but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take
away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore
and took the body of Jesus. And there came also Nicodemus, which at the
first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes
about a hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus and
wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is
to bury. Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden;
and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews’ preparation
day, for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.”14781478John xix.
38–42 Observe how often mention is made of
the body; how the Evangelist shows that it was the body which was
nailed to the cross, the body begged by Joseph of Pilate, the body
taken down from the tree, the body wrapped in linen clothes with the
myrrh and aloes, and then the name of the person given to it; and Jesus
said to have been laid in a tomb. Thus the angel said, “Come see
the place where the Lord lay,”14791479Matt. xxviii.
6 naming the
part by the name of the whole; and we constantly do just the same. In
this place, we say, such an one was buried; not the body of such an
one. Every one in his senses knows that we are speaking of the body,
and such a mode of speech is customary in divine Scripture. Aaron, we
read, died and they buried him on Mount Hor.14801480Deut. x. 6
Samuel died and they buried him at Ramah,148114811 Sam. xxv. 1 and there are many similar instances.
The same use is followed by the divine Apostle when speaking of the
death of the Lord. “I delivered unto you first of all,” he
writes, “that which I also received how that Christ died for our
sins according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He
rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,”148214821 Cor. xv. 3,
4 and so on.

Eran.—In the passages we have just now read the Apostle does not
mention a body, but Christ the Saviour of us all. You have brought
evidence against your own side, and wounded yourself with your own
weapon.

Orth.—You seem to have very quickly forgotten the long discourse
in which I proved to you over and over again that the body is spoken of
by the name of the person. This is what is now done by the divine
Apostle, and it can easily be proved from this very passage. Now let us
look at it. Why did the divine writer write thus to the
Corinthians?

Eran.—They had been deceived by some into believing that there is
no resurrection. When the teacher of the world learnt this he furnished
them with his arguments about the resurrection of the
bodies.

Orth.—Why then does he introduce the resurrection of the Lord,
when he wishes to prove the resurrection of the bodies?

Orth.—In what is His death like the death of the rest; that by
His resurrection may be proved the resurrection of all?

Eran.—The reason of the incarnation, suffering, and death of the
only begotten Son of God, was that He might destroy death. Thus, after
rising, by His own resurrection He preaches the resurrection of
all.

Orth.—But who, hearing of a resurrection of God, would ever
believe that the resurrection of all men would be exactly like it? The
difference of the natures does not allow of our believing in the
argument of the resurrection. He is God and they are men, and the
difference between God and men is incalculable. They are mortal, and
subject to death, like to the grass and to the flower. He is
almighty.

Eran.—But after His incarnation God the Word had a body, and
through this He proved His likeness to men.

Orth.—Yes; and for this reason the suffering and the death and
the resurrection are all of the body, and in proof of this the divine
Apostle in another place promises renewal of life to all, and to them
that believe in the resurrection of their Saviour, yet look upon the
general resurrection of all as fable, he exclaims, “Now if Christ
be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that
there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection
of the dead, then is Christ not risen, and if Christ he not
risen…your faith is vain, you are yet in your sins.”148314831 Cor. xv. 12, 13,
17 And from the past he confirms the
future, and from what is disbelieved he disproves what is believed, for
he says, If the one seems impossible to you, then the other will be
false; if the one seems real and true, then let the other in like
manner seem true, for here too a resurrection of the body is preached,
and this body is called the first fruits of those. The resurrection of
this body after many arguments he affirms directly, “But now is
Christ risen from the dead and become the firstfruits of them that
slept, for since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection
of the dead, for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be
made alive,”148414841 Cor. xv. 21,
22 and he does
not only confirm the argument of the resurrection, but also reveals the
mystery of the œconomy. He calls Christ man that he may prove the
remedy to be appropriate to the disease.

Eran.—Then the Christ is only a man.

Orth.—God forbid. On the contrary, we have again and again
confessed that He is not only man but eternal God. But He suffered as
man, not as God. And this the divine Apostle clearly teaches us when he
says “For since by man came death, by man came also the
resurrection of the dead.”148514851 Cor. xv. 21 And in his
letter to the Thessalonians, he strengthens his argument concerning the
general resurrection by that of our Saviour in the passage “For
if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even them also which
sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.”148614861 Thess. iv.
14

Eran.—The Apostle proves the general resurrection by means of the
Lord’s resurrection, and it is clear that in this case also what
died and rose was a body. For he would never have attempted to prove
the general resurrection by its means unless there had been some
relation between the substance of the one and the other. I shall never
consent to apply the passion to the human nature alone. It seems
agreeable to my view to say that God the Word died in the
flesh.

Orth.—We have frequently shewn that what is naturally immortal
can in no way die. If then He died He was not immortal; and what perils
lie in the blasphemy of the words.

Eran.—He is by nature immortal, but He became man and
suffered.

Orth.—Therefore He underwent change, for how otherwise could He
being immortal submit to death? But we have agreed that the substance
of the Trinity is immutable. Having therefore a nature superior to
change, He by no means shared death.

Orth.—This agrees with what we have said, for we have learnt the
rule of dogmas from the divine Scripture.

Eran.—How then can you deny that God the Word suffered in the
flesh?

Orth.—Because we have not found this expression in the divine
Scripture.

Eran.—But I have just quoted you the utterance of the great
Peter.

Orth.—You seem to ignore the distinction of the terms.

Eran.—What terms? Do you not regard the Lord Christ as God the
Word?

Orth.—The term Christ in the case of our Lord and Saviour
signifies the incarnate Word the Immanuel, God with us,14881488Matt. i. 23 both God and man, but the term
“God the 229Word” so said signifies the simple nature before the world,
superior to time, and incorporeal. Wherefore the Holy Ghost that spake
through the holy Apostles nowhere attributes passion or death to this
name.

Eran.—If the passion is attributed to the Christ, and God the
Word after being made man was called Christ, I hold that he who states
God the Word to have suffered in the flesh is in no way
unreasonable.

Orth.—Hazardous and rash in the extreme is such an attempt. But
let us look at the question in this way. Does the divine Scripture
state God the Word to be of God and of the Father?

Eran.—True.

Orth.—And it describes the Holy Ghost as being in like manner of
God?

Eran.—Agreed.

Orth.—But it calls God the Word only begotten Son.

Eran.—It does.

Orth.—It nowhere so names the Holy Ghost.

Eran.—No.

Orth.—Yet the Holy Ghost also has Its subsistence of the Father
and God.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—We grant then that both the Son and the Holy Ghost are both
of God the Father; but would you dare to call the Holy Ghost
Son?

Eran.—Certainly not.

Orth.—Why?

Eran.—Because I do not find this term in the divine
Scripture.

Orth.—Or begotten?

Eran.—No.

Orth.—Wherefore?

Eran.—Because I no more learn this in the divine
Scripture.

Orth.—But what name can properly be given to that which is
neither begotten nor created?

Eran.—We style it uncreated and unbegotten.

Orth.—And we say that the Holy Ghost is neither created nor
begotten.

Eran.—By no means.

Orth.—Would you then dare to call the Holy Ghost
unbegotten?

Eran.—No.

Orth.—But why refuse to call that which is naturally uncreate,
but not begotten, unbegotten?

Eran.—Because I have not learnt so from the divine Scripture, and
I am greatly afraid of saying, or using language which Scripture does
not use.

Orth.—Then, my good sir, I maintain the same caution in the case
of the passion of salvation; do you too avoid all the divine names
which Scripture has avoided in the case of the passion, and do not
attribute the passion to them.

Eran.—What names?

Orth.—The passion is never connected with the name
“God.”

Eran.—But even I do not affirm that God the Word suffered apart
from a body, but say that He suffered in flesh.

Orth.—You affirm then a mode of passion, not impassibility. No
one would ever say this even in the case of a human body. For who not
altogether out of his senses would say that the soul of Paul died in
flesh? This could never be said even in the case of a great villain;
for the souls even of the wicked are immortal. We say that such or such
a murderer has been slain, but no one would ever say that his soul had
been killed in the flesh. But if we describe the souls of murderers and
violators of sepulchres as free from death, far more right is it to
acknowledge as immortal the soul of our Saviour, in that it never
tasted sin. If the souls of them who have most greatly erred have
escaped death on account of their nature, how could that soul, whose
nature was immortal and who never received the least taint of sin, have
taken death’s hook?

Eran.—It is quite useless for you to give me all these long
arguments. We are agreed that the soul of the Saviour is
immortal.

Orth.—But of what punishment are you not deserving, you who say
that the soul, which is by nature created, is immortal, and are for
making the divine substance mortal for the Word; you who deny that the
soul of the Saviour tasted death in the flesh, and dare to maintain
that God the Word, Creator of all things, underwent the
passion?

Eran.—We say that He underwent the passion impassibly.

Orth.—And what man in his senses would ever put up with such
ridiculous riddles? Who ever heard of an impassible passion, or of an
immortal mortality? The impassible has never undergone passion, and
what has undergone passion could not possibly be impassible. But we
hear the exclamation of the divine Paul: “Who only hath
immortality dwelling in the light which no man can approach
unto.”148914891 Tim. vi. 16

Eran.—Why then do we say that the invisible powers too and the
souls of men, aye and the very devils, are immortal?

230Orth.—We do say so; that
God is absolutely immortal. He is immortal not by partaking of
substance, but in substance; He does not possess an immortality which
He has received of another. It is He Himself who has bestowed their
immortality on the angels and on them that thou hast just now
mentioned. How, moreover, when the divine Paul styles Him immortal and
says that He only hath immortality, can you attribute to Him the
passion of death?

Eran.—We say that He tasted death after the
incarnation.

Orth.—But over and over again we have confessed Him immutable. If
being previously immortal He afterwards underwent death through the
flesh, a change having preceded His undergoing death; if His life left
Him for three days and three nights, how do such statements fall short
of the most extreme impiety? For I think that not even they that are
struggling against impiety can venture to let such words fall from
their lips without peril.

Eran.—Cease from charging us with impiety. Even we say that not
the divine nature suffered but the human; but we do say that the divine
shared with the body in suffering.

Orth.—What can you mean by sharing in suffering? Do you mean that
when the nails were driven into the body the divine nature felt the
sense of pain?

Eran.—I do.

Orth.—Both now and in our former investigations we have shewn
that the soul does not share all the faculties of the body but that the
body while it receives vital force has the sense of suffering through
the soul. And even supposing us to grant that the soul shares in pain
with the body we shall none the less find the divine nature to be
impassible, for it was not united to the body instead of a soul. Or do
you not acknowledge that He assumed a soul?

Eran.—I have often acknowledged it.

Orth.—And that He assumed a reasonable Soul?

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—If then together with the body He assumed the soul, and we
grant that the soul shared in suffering with the body, then the soul,
not the Godhead, shared the passion with the body; it shared the
passion, receiving pangs by means of the body. But possibly somebody
might agree to the soul sharing suffering with the body, but might deny
its sharing death, because of its having an immortal nature. On this
account the Lord said “Fear not them which kill the body but are
not able to kill the soul.”14901490Matt. x. 28 If then we
deny that the soul of the Saviour shared death with the body, how could
any one accept the blasphemy you and your friends presumptuously
promulgate when you dare to say that the divine nature participated in
death? This is the more inexcusable when the Lord points out at one
time that the body14911491Heb. x. 10 was being
offered, at another that the soul was being troubled.14921492John xii. 27

Eran.—And where doth the Lord shew that the body was being
offered? Or are you going to bring me once more that well worn passage
“Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it
up”?14931493John ii. 19 Or with your conceited
self-sufficiency are you going to quote me the words of the Evangelist?
“But He spake of the temple of his body. When therefore He was
risen from the dead His disciples remembered that He had said this unto
them and they believed the Scripture and the words which He had
said.”14941494John ii. 21,
22

Orth.—If you have such a detestation of the divine words which
preach the mystery of the incarnation, why, like Marcion and Valentinus
and Manes, do you not destroy texts of this kind? For this is what they
have done. But if this seems to you rash and impious, do not turn the
Lord’s words into ridicule, but rather follow the Apostles in
their belief after the resurrection that the Godhead raised again the
temple which the Jews had destroyed.

Eran.—If you have any good evidence to adduce, give over gibing
and fulfil your promise.

Orth.—Remember specially those words of the gospels in which the
Lord made a comparison between manna and the true bread.

Eran.—I remember.

Orth.—In that passage after speaking at some length about the
bread of life, he added, “The bread that I will give is my flesh
which I will give for the life of the world.”14951495John vi. 21 In these words may be understood alike the
bounty of the Godhead and the boon of the flesh.

Eran.—One quotation is not enough to settle the
question.

Orth.—The Ethiopian eunuch had not read much of the Bible, but
when he had found one witness from the prophets he was guided by it to
salvation. But not all Apostles and prophets and all the preachers of
the truth who have lived since then are 231enough to convince you.
Nevertheless I will bring you some further testimony about the
Lord’s body. You cannot but know that passage in the Gospel
history where, after eating the passover with His disciples, our Lord
pointed to the death of the typical lamb and taught what body
corresponded with that shadow.14961496Matt. xvii. 26. Mark
xiv. 22. Luke xxii. 19. 1 Cor. xi. 24

Eran.—Yes I know it.

Orth.—Remember then what it was which our Lord took and broke,
and what He called it when He had taken it.

Orth.—Then when exhibiting the type of the passion He did not
mention the Godhead?

Eran.—No.

Orth.—But He did mention the body and blood.

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—And the body was nailed to the Cross?

Eran.—Even so.

Orth.—Come, then; look at this. When after the resurrection the
doors were shut and the Lord came to the holy disciples and beheld them
affrighted, what means did He use to destroy their fear and instead of
fear to infuse faith?

Eran.—He said to them “Behold my hands and my feet that it
is I myself; handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones
as ye see me have.”15001500Luke xxiv. 39

Orth.—So when they disbelieved He shewed them the
body?

Eran.—He did.

Orth.—Therefore the body rose?

Eran.—Clearly.

Orth.—And I suppose what rose was what had died?

Eran.—Even so.

Orth.—And what had died was what was nailed to the
cross?

Eran.—Of necessity.

Orth.—Then according to your own argument the body
suffered?

Eran.—Your series of arguments forces us to this
conclusion.

Orth.—Consider this too. Now I will be questioner, and do you
answer as becomes a lover of the truth.

Eran.—I will answer.

Orth.—When the Holy Ghost came down upon the Apostles, and that
wonderful sight and sound collected thousands to the house, what did
the chief of the apostles in the speech he then made say concerning the
Lord’s resurrection?

Eran.—He quoted the divine David, and said that he had received
promises from God that the Lord Christ should be born of the fruit of
his loins and that in trust in these promises he prophetically foresaw
His resurrection, and plainly said that His soul was not left in Hades
and that His flesh did not see corruption.15011501Acts ii. 29 et seqq. and Ps.
xvi. 10

Orth.—His resurrection therefore is of these.

Eran.—How can any one in his senses say that there is a
resurrection of the soul which never died?

Orth.—How comes it that you who attribute the passion, the death
and the resurrection to the immutable and uncircumscribed Godhead have
suddenly appeared before us in your right mind and now object to
connecting the word resurrection with the soul?

Eran.—Because the word resurrection is applicable to what has
fallen.

Orth.—But the body does not obtain resurrection apart from a
soul, but being renewed by the divine will, and conjoined with its
yokefellow, it receives life. Was it not thus that the Lord raised
Lazarus?

Eran.—It is plain that not the body alone rises.

Orth.—This is more distinctly taught by the divine Ezekiel,15021502Ez. xxxvii. 7 et
seqq. for he points out how the Lord commanded the
bones to come together, and how all of them were duly fitted together,
and how He made sinews and veins and arteries grow with all the flesh
pertaining to them and the skin that clothes them all, and then ordered
the souls to come back to their own bodies.

Eran.—This is true.

Orth.—But the Lord’s body did not undergo this corruption,
but remained unimpaired, and on the third day recovered its own
soul.

Eran.—Agreed.

Orth.—Then the death was of what had suffered?

Eran.—Without question.

Orth.—And when the great Peter mentioned the resurrection, and
the divine David too, they said that His soul was not left in
232Hell, but that His
body did not undergo corruption?

Eran.—They did.

Orth.—Then it was not the Godhead which underwent death, but the
body by severance from the soul?

Eran.—I cannot brook these absurdities.

Orth.—But you are fighting against your own arguments; it is your
own words which you are calling absurd.

Eran.—You slander me; not one of these words is mine.

Orth.—Suppose any one to
ask what is the animal which is at once reasonable and mortal, and
suppose some one else to answer—man; which of the two would you
call interpreter of the saying? The questioner or the
answerer?

Eran.—The answerer.

Orth.—Then I was quite right in calling the arguments yours? For
you, I ween, in your answers, by rejecting some points and accepting
others, confirmed them.

Eran.—Then I will not answer any longer; do you
answer.

Orth.—I will answer.

Eran.—What do you say to those words of the Apostle “Had
they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”?150315031 Cor. ii. 8 in this passage he mentions neither body
nor soul.

Orth.—Therefore you must not put the words “in the
flesh” in it,—for this is your ingenious invention for
decrying the Godhead of the Word—but must attribute the passion
to the bare Godhead of the Word.

Eran.—No; no. He suffered in the flesh, but His incorporeal
nature was not capable of suffering by itself.

Orth.—Ah! but nothing must be added to the Apostle’s
words.

Eran.—When we know the Apostle’s meaning there is nothing
absurd in adding what is left out.

Orth.—But to add anything to the divine words is wild and rash.
To explain what is written and reveal the hidden meaning is holy and
pious.

Eran.—Quite right.

Orth.—We two then shall do nothing unreasonable and unholy in
examining the mind of the Scriptures.

Orth.—But in what sense are we to regard him as brother? By
relationship of His godhead or of His manhood?

Eran.—I will not consent to divide the united natures.

Orth.—But you have often divided them in our previous
investigations, and you shall do the same thing now. Tell me; do you
say that God the Word was only begotten Son?

Eran.—I do.

Orth.—And only begotten means only Son.

Eran.—Certainly.

Orth.—And the only begotten cannot have a brother?

Eran.—Of course not, for if He had had a brother He would not be
called the only begotten.

Orth.—Then they were wrong in calling James the brother of the
Lord. For the Lord was only begotten, and the only begotten cannot have
a brother.

Eran.—No, but the Lord is not incorporeal and the proclaimers of
the truth are referring only to what touches the godhead.

Orth.—How then would you prove the word of the apostle
true?

Eran.—By saying that James was of kin with the Lord according to
the flesh.

Orth.—See how you have brought in again that division which you
object to.

Eran.—It was not possible to explain the kinship in any other
way.

Orth.—Then do not find fault with those who cannot explain
similar difficulties in any other way.

Eran.—Now you are getting the argument off the track because you
want to shirk the question.

Orth.—Not at all, my friend. That will be settled too by the
points we have investigated. Now look; when you were reminded of James
the brother of the Lord, you said that the relationship referred not to
the Godhead but to the flesh.

Eran.—I did.

Orth.—Well, now that you are told of the passion of the cross,
refer this too to the flesh.

Eran.—The Apostle called the crucified “Lord of
Glory,”150515051 Cor. ii. 8 and the same Apostle
called the Lord “brother of James.”

Orth.—And it is the same Lord in both cases. If then you are
right in referring the relationship to the flesh you must also refer
the passion to the flesh, for it is perfectly ridiculous to regard the
relationship without 233distinction and to refer the passion to Christ without
distinction.

Eran.—I follow the Apostle who calls the crucified “Lord of
glory.”

Orth.—I follow too, and believe that He was “Lord of
glory.” For the body which was nailed to the wood was not that of
any common man but of the Lord of glory. But we must acknowledge that
the union makes the names common. Once more: do you say that the flesh
of the Lord came down from heaven?

Eran.—Of course not.

Orth.—But was formed in the Virgin’s womb?

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—How, then, does the Lord say “If ye shall see the Son
of man ascend up where He was before,”15061506John vi. 62
and again “No man hath ascended up to heaven but He that came
down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven?”15071507John iii. 13

Eran.—He is speaking not of the flesh, but of the
Godhead.

Orth.—Yes; but the Godhead is of the God and Father. How then
does He call him Son of man?

Eran.—The peculiar properties of the natures are shared by the
person, for on account of the union the same being is both Son of man
and Son of God, everlasting and of time, Son of David and Lord of
David, and so on with the rest.

Orth.—Very right. But it is also important to recognise the fact
that no confusion of natures results from both having one name.
Wherefore we are endeavouring to distinguish how the same being is Son
of God and also Son of man, and how He is “the same yesterday,
to-day, and for ever,”15081508Heb. xiii. 8 and by the
reverent distinction of terms we find that the contradictions are in
agreement.

Eran.—You are right.

Orth.—You say that the divine nature came down from heaven and
that in consequence of the union it was called the Son of man. Thus it
behoves us to say that the flesh was nailed to the tree, but to hold
that the divine nature even on the cross and in the tomb was
inseparable from this flesh, though from it it derived no sense of
suffering, since the divine nature is naturally incapable of undergoing
both suffering and death and its substance is immortal and impassible.
It is in this sense that the crucified is styled Lord of Glory, by
attribution of the title of the impassible nature to the passible,
since, as we know, a body is described as belonging to this
latter.

Now let us examine the matter
thus. The words of the divine Apostle are “Had they known it they
would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.”150915091 Cor. ii. 8 They crucified the nature which they knew,
not that of which they were wholly ignorant: had they known that of
which they were ignorant they would not have crucified that which they
knew: they crucified the human because they were ignorant of the
divine. Have you forgotten their own words. “For a good work we
stone thee not but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man,
makest thyself God.”15101510John x. 33 These words are a
plain proof that they recognised the nature they saw, while of the
invisible they were wholly ignorant: had they known that nature they
would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Eran.—That is very probable, but the exposition of the faith laid
down by the Fathers in council at Nicæa says that the only
begotten Himself, very God, of one substance with the Father, suffered
and was crucified.

Orth.—You seem to forget what we have agreed on again and
again.

Eran.—What do you mean?

Orth.—I mean that after the union the holy Scripture applies to
one person terms both of exaltation and of humiliation. But possibly
you are also ignorant that the illustrious Fathers first mentioned His
taking flesh and being made man, and then afterwards added that He
suffered and was crucified, and thus spoke of the passion after they
had set forth the nature capable of passion.

Eran.—The Fathers said that the Son of God, Light of Light, of
the substance of the Father, suffered and was crucified.

Orth.—I have observed more than once that both the Divine and the
human are ascribed to the one Person. It is in accordance with this
position that the thrice blessed Fathers, after teaching how we should
believe in the Father, and then passing on to the person of the Son,
did not immediately add “and in the Son of God,” although
it would have very naturally followed that after defining what touches
God the Father they should straightway have introduced the name of Son.
But their object was to give us at one and the same time instruction on
the theology and on the œconomy,15111511 Vide
note on page 72.
lest there should be supposed to be any distinction between the Person
of the Godhead and the Person of the Manhood. On this account
234they added to
their statement concerning the Father that we must believe also in our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Now after the incarnation God the
Word is called Christ, for this name includes alike all that is proper
to the Godhead and to the manhood. We recognise nevertheless that some
properties belong to the one nature and some to the others, and this
may at once be understood from the actual terms of the Creed. For tell
me: to what do you apply the phrase “of the substance of the
Father”? to the Godhead, or to the nature that was fashioned of
the seed of David?

Eran.—To the Godhead, as is plain.

Orth.—And the clause “Very God of very God”; to which
do you hold this belongs, to the Godhead or to the manhood?

Eran.—To the Godhead.

Orth.—Therefore neither the flesh nor the soul is of one
substance with the Father, for they are created, but the Godhead which
formed all things.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—Very well, then. And when we are told of passion and of the
cross we must recognise the nature which submitted to the passion; we
must avoid attributing it to the impassible, and must attribute it to
that nature which was assumed for the distinct purpose of suffering.
The acknowledgment on the part of the most excellent Fathers that the
divine nature was impassible; and their attribution of the passion to
the flesh is proved by the conclusion of the creed, which runs
“But they who state there was a time when He was not, and before
He was begotten He was not, and He was made out of the non-existent, or
who allege that the Son of God was of another essence or substance
mutable or variable, these the holy catholic and apostolic Church
anathematizes.” See then what penalties are denounced against
them that attribute the passion to the divine nature.15121512 See
the Creed as published by the Council. p. 50.

Eran.—They are speaking in this place of mutation and
variation.

Orth.—But what is the passion but mutation and variation? For if,
being impassible before His incarnation, He suffered after His
incarnation, He assuredly suffered by undergoing mutation; and if being
immortal before He became man, He tasted death, as you say, after being
made man, He underwent a complete alteration by being made mortal after
being immortal. But expressions of this kind, and their authors with
them, have all been expelled by the illustrious Fathers from the bounds
of the Church, and cut off like rotten limbs from the sound body. We
therefore exhort you to fear the punishment and abhor the
blasphemy.

Now I will show you that in
their own writings the holy Fathers have held the opinions we have
expressed. Of the witnesses I shall bring forward some took part in
that great Council; some flourished in the Church after their time;
some illuminated the world long before. But their harmony is broken
neither by difference of periods nor by diversity of language; like the
harp their strings are several and separate but like the harp they make
one harmonious music.

Eran.—I was anxious for and shall be delighted at such citations.
Instruction of this kind cannot be gainsaid, and is most
useful.

Orth.—Now; open your ears and receive the streams that flow from
the spiritual springs.

Testimony of the holy Ignatius,
bishop of Antioch, and martyr.

From his Epistle to the
Smyrnæans:—

“They do not admit
Eucharists and oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist to
be flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and
which of His goodness the Father raised.”15131513 The
quotation is not quite exact, “᾽Εὐχαριστίας
καὶ
προσφορὰς
οῦκ
ἀποδέχονται” being substituted for εὐχαριστίας
καὶ
προσευχῆς
ἀπεχονται. Bp. Lightfoot (Ap. Fath. II. ii. 307) notes, “the
argument is much the same as Tertullian’s against the Docetism of
Marcion (adv. Marc. iv. 40), ‘Acceptum panem et distributum
discipulis corpus suum illum fecit. Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est
figura mei corporis. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset
corpus, ceterum vacua res quod est phantasma, figuram capere non
posset.’ The Eucharist implies the reality of Christ’s
flesh. To those who deny this reality it has no meaning at all; to them
Christ’s words of institution are false; it is in no sense the
flesh of Christ.” Cf. Iren. iv. 18, 5.

Testimony of Irenæus,
bishop of Lyons.

From his third book against
heresies (Chap. xx.):—

“It is clear then that
Paul knew no other Christ save Him that suffered and was buried and
rose and was born, whom he calls man, for after saying, ‘If
Christ be preached that He rose from the dead,’151415141 Cor. xv. 12 he adds, giving the reason of His
incarnation, ‘For since by man came death by man came also the
resurrection of the dead,’151515151 Cor. xv. 21 and on all
occasions in reference to the passion, the manhood and the dissolution
of the Lord, he uses the name of Christ as in the text, ‘Destroy
not him with thy meat for whom Christ died,’15161516Rom. xiv. 15 and again, ‘But now in Christ ye who
sometimes were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ,’15171517Ephes. ii. 13. Observe slight
differences. and again, ‘Christ hath redeemed us
from the curse of the law, being made a 235curse for us: for it is
written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.’”15181518Gal. iii. 13 and Deut. xxi.
23

Of the same from the same work.
(Chapter xxi.):—

“For as He was Man that He
might be tempted, so was He Word that He might be glorified. In His
temptation, His crucifixion and His dying, the Word was inoperative;
but in His victory, His patience, His goodness, His resurrection and
His assumption it was co-operative with the manhood.”

Of the same from the fifth book
of the same work:—

“When with His own blood
the Lord had ransomed us, and given His soul on behalf of our souls,
and His flesh instead of our flesh.”

The testimony of the holy
Hippolytus, bishop and martyr.

From his letter to a certain
Queen:—

“So he calls Him
‘The firstfruits of them that slept,’151915191 Cor. xv. 20 and ‘The first born of the
dead.’15201520Coloss. i. 18 When He had risen and was wishful to
show that what had risen was the same body which died, when the
Apostles doubted, He called to Him Thomas and said ‘Handle me and
see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me
have.’”15211521 cf. Luke xxiv. 39. And for the
application of these words to St. Thomas cf. page 210.

Of the same from the same
letter:—

“By calling Him
firstfruits He bore witness to what we have said, that the Saviour,
after taking the flesh of the same material, raised it, making it
firstfruits of the flesh of the just, in order that all we that believe
might have expectation of our resurrection through trust in Him that is
risen.”

Of the same from his discourse
on the two thieves:—

“The body of the Lord gave
both to the world,—the holy blood and the sacred
water.”

Of the same from the same
discourse:—

“And the body being,
humanly speaking, a corpse, has in itself great power of life, for
there flowed from it what does not flow from dead bodies—blood
and water,—that we might know what vital force lies in the
indwelling power in the body, so that it is a corpse evidently unlike
others, and is able to pour forth for us causes of life.”15221522 The
effusion of water and blood is now well known to have been a natural
consequence of the “broken heart.” On the rupture of the
heart the blood fills the pericardium, and then coagulates. The wound
of the lance gave passage to the collected blood and serum. cf. Dr.
Stroud’s “Physical Cause of the Death of
Christ,” first published in 1847.

Of the same from the same
discourse:—

“Not a bone of the holy
Lamb is broken. The type shews that the passion cannot touch the power,
for the bones are the power of the body.”

Testimony of the holy
Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, and confessor.

From his book on the
soul:—

“Their impious calumny can
be refuted in a few words; they may be right, unless He voluntarily
gave up His own body to the destruction of death for the sake of the
salvation of men. First of all they attribute to Him extraordinary
infirmity in not being able to repel His enemies
assault.”

Of the same from the same
book:—

“Why do they, in the
concoction of their earth-born deceits, make much of proving that the
Christ assumed a body without a soul? In order that if they could
seduce any to lay down that this is the case, then, by attributing to
the divine Spirit variations of affection, they might easily persuade
them that the mutable is not begotten of the immutable
nature.”

Of the same from his discourse
on “the Lord created me in the beginning of His ways”:15231523Prov. viii.
22,
lxx.—

“The man Who died rose on
the third day, and, when Mary was eager to lay hold of His holy limbs,
He objected and cried ‘Touch me not.15241524 i.e. literally, try not to lay hold of me.
For I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren and say
unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father and to my God and
your God.’15251525John xx. 17 Now the words
‘I am not yet ascended to my Father,’ were not spoken by
the Word and God, who came down from heaven, and was in the bosom of
the Father, nor by the Wisdom which contains all created things, but
were uttered by the man who was compacted of various limbs, who had
risen from the dead, who had not yet after His death gone back to the
Father, and was reserving for Himself the first fruits of His
progress.”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“As he writes he expressly
describes the man who was crucified as Lord of Glory, declaring Him to
be Lord and Christ, just as the Apostles with one voice when speaking
to Israel in the flesh say ‘Therefore let all the house of Israel
know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, Whom ye have
crucified, both Lord and Christ.’15261526Acts ii. 36
He so made Jesus Christ who suffered. He did not so make the Wisdom nor
yet the Word who has the might of dominion from the beginning, but Him
who was lifted up on high and stretched out His hands upon the
Cross.”

Of the same from the same
work:—

236“For if He is incorporeal and not subject to manual contact,
nor apprehended by eyes of flesh, He undergoes no wound, He is not
nailed by nails, He has no part in death, He is not hidden in the
ground, He is not shut in a grave, He does not rise from a
tomb.”

Of the same from the same
book:—

“‘No man taketh it
from me.…I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it
again.’15271527John x. 18 If as God He had
the double power, He yet yielded to them who were striving of evil
counsel to destroy the temple, but by His resurrection He restored it
in greater splendour. It is proved by incontrovertible evidence that He
of Himself rose and renewed His own house, and the great work of the
Son is to be ascribed to the divine Father; for the Son does not work
without the Father, as is declared in the unimpeachable utterances of
the holy Scriptures. Wherefore at one time the divine Parent is
described as having raised the Christ from the dead, at another time
the Son promises to raise His own temple. If then from what has
previously been laid down the divine spirit of the Christ is proved to
be impassible, in vain do the accursed assail the apostolic
definitions. If Paul says that the Lord of Glory was crucified, clearly
referring to the manhood, we must not on this account refer suffering
to the divine. Why then do they put these two things together, saying
that the Christ was crucified from infirmity?”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“But had it been becoming
to attribute to Him any kind of infirmity, any one might have said that
it was natural to attach these qualities to the manhood, though not to
the fulness of the Godhead, or to the dignity of the highest wisdom, or
to Him who according to Paul is described as God over all.”15281528Rom. ix. 5

Of the same from the same
book:—

“This then is the manner
of the infirmity according to which He is described by Paul as coming
to death, for the man lives by God’s power when plainly
associated with God’s spirit, since from the preceding statements
He who is believed to be in Him is proved to be also the power of the
Most High.”

Of the same from the
same:—

“As by entering the
Virgin’s womb He did not lessen His power, so neither by the
fastening of His body to the wood of the cross is His spirit defiled.
For when the body was crucified on high the divine Spirit of wisdom
dwelt even within the body, trod in heavenly places, filled all the
earth, reigned over the depths, visited and judged the soul of every
man, and continued to do all that God continually does, for the wisdom
that is on high is not prisoned and contained within bodily matter,
just as moist and dry material are contained within their vessels and
are contained by but do not contain them. But this wisdom, being a
divine and ineffable power, embraces and confirms alike all that is
within and all that is without the temple, and thence proceeding beyond
comprehends and sways at once all matter.”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“But if the sun being a
visible body, apprehended by the senses, endures everywhere such
adverse influences without changing its order, or feeling any blow, be
it small or great; can we suppose the incorporeal Wisdom to be defiled
and to change its nature because its temple is nailed to the cross or
destroyed or wounded or corrupted? The temple suffers, but the
substance abides without spot, and preserves its entire dignity without
defilement.”

Of the same from his work on the
titles of the Psalms of Degrees:—

“The Father who is
perfect, infinite, incomprehensible, and is incapable alike of
adornment or disfigurement, receives no acquired glory; nor yet does
His Word, who is God begotten of Him, through whom are angels and
heaven and earth’s boundless bulk and all the form and matter of
created things; but the man Christ raised from the dead is exalted and
glorified to the open discomfiture of His foes.”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“They however who have
lifted up hatred against Him, though they be fenced round with the
forces of His foes, are scattered abroad, while the God and Word
gloriously raised His own temple.”

Of the same from his
interpretation of the 92nd Psalm:—

“Moreover the prophet
Isaiah following the tracks of His sufferings, among other utterances
exclaims with a mighty voice ‘And we saw Him and He had no form
nor beauty. His form was dishonoured and rejected among the sons of
men,’15291529Isaiah liii. 2,
3.
Sept. thus distinctly showing that the
marks of indignity and the sufferings must be applied to the human but
not to the divine. And immediately afterwards he adds ‘Being a
man under stroke, and able to bear infirmity.’15301530Isaiah liii.
3.
Sept. He it is who after suffering outrage was
seen to have no form or comeliness, then again was changed and clothed
with beauty, for the God dwelling in Him was not led like a lamb to
death 237and
slaughtered like a sheep, for His nature is
invisible.”

Testimony of the Holy
Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, and confessor.

From his letter to
Epictetus:—

“Whoever reached such a
pitch of impiety as to think and say that the Godhead itself of one
substance with the Father was circumcised, and from perfect became
imperfect; and to deny that what was crucified on the tree was the
body, asserting it on the contrary to be the very creative substance of
wisdom?”

Of the same from the same
treatise:—

“The Word associated with
Himself and brought upon Himself what the humanity of the Word
suffered, that we might be able to share in the Godhead of the Word.
And marvellous it was that the sufferer and He who did not suffer were
the same; sufferer in that His own body suffered and He was in it while
suffering, but not suffering because the Word, being by nature God, was
impassible. And He Himself the incorporeal was in the passible body,
and the body contained in itself the impassible Word, destroying the
infirmities of His body.”

Of the same from the same
letter:—

“For being God and Lord of
Glory, He was in the body ingloriously crucified; but the body suffered
when smitten on the tree, and water and blood flowed from its side; but
being temple of the Word, it was full of the Godhead. Wherefore when
the sun saw its Creator suffering in His outraged body, it drew in its
rays, and darkened the earth. And that very body with a mortal nature
rose superior to its own nature, on account of the Word within it, and
is no longer touched by its natural corruption, but clothed with the
superhuman Word, became incorruptible.”

Of the same from his greater
discourse on the Faith:—

“Was what rose from the
dead, man or God? Peter, the Apostle, who knows better than we,
interprets and say, ‘and when they had fulfilled all that was
written of Him they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a
sepulchre, but God raised Him from the dead.’15311531 The
quotation seems to be a confusion between Acts ii. 24, and Acts xiii.
29.
Sic in Athan. Ed. Migne. II. 1030. Now the dead body of Jesus which was taken
down from the tree, which had been laid in a sepulchre, and entombed by
Joseph of Arimathæa, is the very body which the Word raised,
saying, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it
up.’15321532John iii. 19 It is He who quickens all the dead,
and quickened the man Christ Jesus, born of Mary, whom He assumed. For
if while on the cross15331533 But “after his resurrection” appears to qualify the
statement “arose” as well as “appeared”
in Matt. xxviii. 53 He raised
corpses of the saints that had previously undergone dissolution, much
more can God the everliving Word raise the body, which He wore, as says
Paul, ‘For the word of God is quick and powerful.’”15341534Hebrews iv.
12

Of the same from the same
work:—

“Life then does not die,
but quickens the dead; for as the light is not injured in a dark place,
so life cannot suffer when it has visited a mortal nature, for the
Godhead of the Word is immutable and invariable as the Lord says in the
prophecy about Himself ‘I am the Lord I change
not.’”15351535Malachi iii.
6

Of the same from the same
work:—

“Living He cannot die but
on the contrary quickens the dead. He is therefore, by the Godhead
derived from the Father, a fount of light; but He that died, or rather
rose from the dead, our intercessor, who was born of the Virgin Mary,
whom the Godhead of the Word assumed for our sake, is
man.”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“It came to pass that
Lazarus fell sick and died; but the divine Man did not fall sick nor
against His own will did He die, but of His own accord came to the
dispensation of death, being strengthened by God the Word who dwelt
within Him, and who said ‘No man taketh it from me but I lay it
down of myself. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it
again.’15361536John x. 18 The Godhead then
which lays down and takes the life of man which He wore is of the Son,
for in its completeness He assumed the manhood, in order that in its
completeness He might quicken it, and, with it, the
dead.”

Of the same from his discourse
against the Arians:—

“When therefore the
blessed Paul says the Father ‘raised’ the Son ‘from
the dead’15371537Acts xiii. 30 John tells us
that Jesus said ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will
raise it up…but He spake’ of His own ‘body.’15381538John ii. 19 and 21 So it is clear to them that take heed
that at the raising of the body the Son is said by Paul to have been
raised from the dead, for he refers what concerns the body to the
Son’s person, and just so when he says ‘the Father gave
life to the Son’15391539John v. 26 it must be
understood that the life was given to the Flesh. For if He Himself is
life how can the life receive life?”

“For when the Word was
conscious that in no other way could the ruin of men be undone save by
death to the uttermost, and it was impossible that the Word who is
immortal and Son of the Father should die, to effect His end He assumes
a body capable of death, that this body, being united to the Word, who
is over all, might, in the stead of all, become subject to death, and
because of the indwelling Word might remain incorruptible, and so by
the grace of the resurrection corruption for the future might lose its
power over men. Thus offering to death, as a sacrifice and victim free
from every spot, the body which He had assumed, by His corresponding
offering He straightway destroyed death’s power over all His
kind; for being the Word of God above and beyond all men, He rightly
offered and paid His own temple and bodily instrument, as a ransom for
all souls due to death. And thus by means of the like (body) being
associated with all men, the incorruptible Son of God rightly clothed
all men with incorruption by the promise of the resurrection, for the
corruption inherent in death no longer has any place with men, for the
sake of the Word who dwelt in them by the means of the one
body.”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“Wherefore, after His
divine manifestations in His works, now also on behalf of all He
offered sacrifice, yielding to death His own temple instead of all,
that He might make all men irresponsible and free from the ancient
transgression, and, exhibiting His own body as incorruptible
firstfruits of the resurrection of mankind, might shew Himself stronger
than death. For the body, as having a common substance—for it was
a human body, although by a new miracle its constitution was of the
Virgin alone—being mortal, died after the example of its like;
but by the descent of the Word into it no longer suffered corruption,
according to its own nature, but, on account of God the Word who dwelt
within it, was delivered from corruption.”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“Whence, as I have said,
since it was not possible for the Word being immortal to die, He took
upon Himself a body capable of death, in order that He might offer this
same body for all, and He Himself in His suffering on behalf of all
through His descent into this body might ‘destroy Him that hath
the power of death.’”15401540Heb. ii. 14

Of the same from the same
work:15411541 This
passage is not found in the discourse on the Incarnation, but a similar
passage occurs in the third oration against the Arians. Ed. Ben. p.
606.—

“For the body in its
passion, as is the nature of bodies, died, but it had the promise of
incorruption through the Word that dwelt within it. For when the body
died the Word was not injured; but He was Himself impassible,
incorruptible, and immortal, as being God’s Word, and being
associated with the body He kept from it the natural corruption of
bodies, as says the Spirit to Him ‘thou wilt not suffer thy Holy
One to see corruption.’”15421542Ps. xvi. 10

The testimony of the holy
Damasus, bishop of Rome:15431543 Epist. iii. Ad Paulinum.—

“If any one say that, in
the passion of the Cross, God the Son of God suffered pain, and not the
flesh with the soul, which the form of the servant put on and assumed,
as the Scripture saith, Let him be anathema.”

Testimony of the holy Ambrosius,
bishop of Milan.

From his book on the Catholic
faith:—

“There are some men who
have reached such a pitch of impiety as to think that the Godhead of
the Lord was circumcised, and from perfect was made imperfect; and that
the divine substance, Creator of all things, and not the flesh, was on
the tree.”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“The flesh suffered; but
the Godhead is free from death. He yielded His body to suffer according
to the law of human nature. For how can God die, when the soul cannot
die? ‘Fear not,’ He says, ‘them which kill the body
but are not able to kill the soul.’15441544Matt. x. 28
If then the soul cannot be slain how can the Godhead be made subject to
death?”

Testimony of the holy Basilius,
bishop of Cæsarea:—

“It is perfectly well
known to every one who has the least acquaintance with the meaning of
the words of the Apostle that he is not delivering to us a mode of
theology but is explaining the reasons of the œconomy,15451545 cf.
note on p. 72. for he says ‘God hath made that same
Jesus whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ.’15461546Acts ii. 36 Thus he is plainly directing his argument
to His human and visible nature.”

Testimony of the holy Gregorius,
bishop of Nazianzus.

From his letter to the blessed
Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople:—

“The saddest thing in what
has befallen the churches is the boldness of the utterances of
Apollinarius and his party. I cannot understand how your Holiness has
allowed them to 239arrogate to themselves the power of assembling on the same terms
with us.”

And a little further
on:—

“I will no longer call
this serious; it is indeed saddest of all that the only begotten God
Himself, Judge of all who exist, the Prince of Life, the Destroyer of
Death, is made by him mortal and alleged to receive suffering in His
own Godhead. He represents the Godhead to have shared with the body in
the dissolution of that three days death of the body, and so after the
death to have been again raised by the Father.”

Of the same from his former
exposition to Cledonius:—

“It is the contention of
the Arians that the manhood was without a soul, that they may refer the
passion to the Godhead and represent the same power as both moving the
body and suffering.”

Of the same from his discourse
about the Son:—

“It remained for us to
treat of what was commanded Him and of His keeping the commandments and
doing all things pleasing to Him; and further of His perfection,
exaltation, and learning obedience by all that He suffered,15471547 cf. Heb. v. 8 His priesthood, His offering, His
betrayal, His entreaty to Him that hath power to save Him from death,
His agony, His bloody sweat, His prayer and similar manifestations,
were it not clear to all that all these expressions in connexion with
His Passion in no way signify the nature which was immutable and above
suffering.”

Of the same from his Easter
Discourse (Or. ii.):—

“‘Who is this that
cometh from Edom?’15481548Isaiah lxiii.
1 and from the
earth, and how can the garments of the bloodless and bodiless be red as
of one that treadeth in the wine-fat? Urge in reply the beauty of the
garment of the body which suffered and was made beautiful in suffering,
and was made splendid by the Godhead, than which nothing is lovelier
nor more fair.”

Testimony of Gregory, bishop of
Nyssa.

From his catechetical
oration:—

“And this is the mystery
of the dispensation of God concerning the manhood and of the
resurrection from the dead, not to prevent the soul from being
separated from the body by death according to the necessary law of
human nature, and to bring them together again through the
resurrection.”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“The flesh which received
the Godhead, and which through the resurrection was exalted with the
Godhead, is not formed of another material, but of ours; so, just as in
the case of our own body, the operation of one of the senses moves to
general sensation the whole man united to that part, in like manner
just as though all nature were one single animal, the resurrection of
the part pervades the whole, being conveyed from the part to the whole
by what is continuous and united in nature. What then do we find
extraordinary in the mystery that the upright stoops to the fallen to
raise up him that lies low?”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“It would be natural also
in this part not to heed the one and neglect the other; but in the
immortal to behold the human, and to be curiously exact about the
diviner quality in the manhood.”

Of the same from his work
against Eunomius:—

“’Tis not the human
nature which raises Lazarus to life. ’Tis not the impassible
power which sheds tears over the dead. The tear belongs to the man; the
life comes from the very life. The thousands are not fed by human
poverty; omnipotence does not hasten to the fig tree. Who was weary in
the way, and who by His word sustains all the world without being
weary? What is the brightness of His glory, what was pierced by the
nails? What form is smitten in the passion, what is glorified for
everlasting? The answer is plain and needs no
interpretation.”

Of the same from the same
treatise:—

“He blames them that refer
the passion to the human nature. He wishes himself wholly to subject
the Godhead itself to the passion, for the proposition being twofold
and doubtful, whether the divinity or the humanity was concerned in the
passion, the denial of the one becomes the positive condemnation of the
other. While therefore they blame them who see the passion in the
humanity, they will bestow unqualified praise on them that maintain the
Divinity of the Son of God to be passible. But the point established by
these means becomes a confirmation of their own absurdity of doctrine;
for if, as they allege, the Godhead of the Son suffers while that of
the Father in accordance with its substance is conserved in complete
impassibility, it follows that the impassible nature is at variance
with the nature which sustains suffering.”

The testimony of the holy
Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium.

From his discourse on the text
“Verily, verily I say unto you, he that heareth my 240word and believeth on
Him that sent me hath everlasting life”:15491549John v. 24—

“Whose then are the
sufferings? Of the flesh. Therefore if you give to the flesh the
suffering, give it also the lowly words; and ascribe the exalted words
to Him to Whom you assign the miracles. For the God when He is in the
act of working wonders naturally speaks in high and lofty language
worthy of His works and the man when He is suffering fitly utters lowly
words corresponding with His sufferings.”

“But when you give the
sufferings to the flesh and the miracles to God, you must of necessity,
though unwillingly, give the lowly words to the man born of Mary, and
the high and lofty words becoming God, to the Word who existed in the
beginning. The reason why I utter sometimes lofty words and sometimes
lowly is that by the lofty I may show the nobility of the indwelling
Word, and by the lowly make known the infirmity of the lowly flesh. So
at one time I call myself equal to the Father and at another I call the
Father greater; and in this I am not inconsistent with myself, but I
shew that I am God and man; God by the lofty and man by the lowly. And
if you wish to know in what sense my Father is greater than I, I spoke
in the flesh and not in the person of the Godhead.”

“Ascribe not then the
sufferings of the flesh to the impassible God, for I, O heretic, am
God, and man; God, as the miracles prove; man as is shewn by the
sufferings. Since then I am God and man, tell me, who was it who
suffered? If God suffered, you have spoken blasphemy; but if the flesh
suffered, why do you not attribute the passion to Him to whom you
ascribe the dread? For while one is suffering another feels on dread;
while man is being crucified God is not troubled.”

Of the same from his discourse
against the Arians:—

“And not to prolong what I
am saying, I will shortly ask you, O heretic, did He who was begotten
of God before the ages suffer, or Jesus who was born of David in the
last days? If the Godhead suffered, thou hast spoken blasphemy; if, as
the truth is, the manhood suffered, for what reason do you hesitate to
attribute the passion to man?”

Of the same from his discourse
concerning the Son:—

“Peter said, ‘God
hath made this Jesus both Lord and Christ’15521552Acts ii. 36 and said too, ‘this Jesus whom ye
crucified God hath raised up.’15531553Acts ii. 24. The citation is
loose. Now it was
the manhood, not the Godhead, which became a corpse, and He who raised
it was the Word, the power of God, who said in the Gospel,
‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it
up.’15541554John ii. 19 So when it is said that God hath made
Him who became a corpse and rose from the dead both Lord and Christ,
what is meant is the flesh, and not the Godhead of the
Son.”

“For He had not such a
nature as that His life could be held by corruption, since His Godhead
was not forcibly reduced to suffering. For how could it? But the
manhood was renewed in incorruption. So he says ‘For this mortal
must put on immortality and this corruptible must put on
incorruption.’155615561 Cor. xv. 53. Observe the
inaccuracy of the quotation. You observe the
accuracy; he points distinctly to ‘this mortal’ that you
may not entertain the idea of the resurrection of any other
flesh.”

Testimony of the holy Flavianus,
bishop of Antioch.

On Easter Day:—

“Wherefore also the cross
is boldly preached by us, and the Lord’s death confessed among
us, though in nothing did the Godhead suffer, for the divine is
impassible, but the dispensation was fulfilled by the
body.”

Of the same on Judas the
traitor:—

“When therefore you hear
of the Lord being betrayed, do not degrade the divine dignity to
insignificance, nor attribute to divine power the sufferings of the
body. For the divine is impassible and invariable. For if through His
love to mankind He took on Him the form of a servant, He underwent no
change in nature. But being what He ever was, he yielded the divine15571557 The
Latin translator, as though observing the apparent impropriety of the
epithet, here renders θεῖον “sanctissimum.” body to experience
death.”

Testimony of Theophilus, bishop
of Alexandria.

From his Heortastic
Volume:—

“Of unreasoning beings the
souls are not taken and replaced: they share in the corruption of the
bodies, and are dissolved into dust. But after the Saviour at the time
of the cross had taken the soul from His own body, He restored it to
the body again when He rose from the dead. To assure us of this He
uttered the words of the psalmist, the predictive exclamation,
‘Thou wilt not 241leave my soul in Hell nor suffer thine Holy One to see
corruption.’”15581558Ps. xvi. 10

Testimony of the blessed
Gelasius, bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine:—

“He was bound, He was
wounded, He was crucified, He was handled, He was marked with scars, He
received a lance’s wound, and all these indignities were
undergone by the body born of Mary, while that which was begotten from
the Father before the ages none was able to harm, for the Word had no
such nature. For how can any one constrain Godhead? How wound it? How
make red with blood the incorporeal nature? How surround it with grave
bands? Grant now what you cannot contravene and, constrained by
invincible reason, honour Godhead.”

Testimony of the holy John,
bishop of Constantinople.

From his discourse on the words
“My Father worketh hitherto and I work”:15591559John v. 17—

“‘What sign shewest
Thou unto us seeing that Thou doest these things?’15601560John ii. 18 What then does He reply Himself?
‘Destroy this temple,’ He says, ‘and in three days I
will raise it up,’15611561John ii. 19 speaking of His
own body, but they did not understand Him.”

And a little further
on:—

“Why does not the
evangelist pass this by? Why did he add the correction, ‘But He
spake of the temple of his body’?15621562John ii. 21
for He did not say destroy this ‘body,’ but
‘temple’ that He might shew the indwelling God. Destroy
this temple which is far more excellent than that of the Jews. The
Jewish temple contained the Law; this temple contains the Lawgiver; the
former the letter that killeth; the latter the spirit that giveth
life.”15631563 cf. 2 Cor. iii. 6

Of the same from the discourse
“That what was spoken and done in humility was not so done and
spoken on account of infirmity of power but different
dispensations”:—

“How then does He say
‘If it be possible’?15641564Matt. xxvi.
39 He is
pointing out to us the infirmity of the human nature, which did not
choose to be torn away from this present life, but stepped back and
shrank on account of the love implanted in it by God in the beginning
for the present life. If then when the Lord Himself so often spoke in
such terms, some have dared to say that He did not take flesh, what
would they have said if none of these words had been spoken by
Him?”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“Observe how they spoke of
His former age. Ask the heretic the question Does God dread? Does He
draw back? Does He shrink? Does He sorrow? and if he says yes, stand
off from him for the future, rank him down below with the devil, aye
lower even than the devil, for even the devil will not dare to say
this. But, should he say that each of these things is unworthy of God,
reply—neither does God pray; for apart from these it will be yet
another absurdity should the words be the words of God, for the words
indicate not only an agony, but also two wills; one of the Son and
another of the Father, opposed to one another. For the words ‘Not
as I will, but as Thou wilt,’ are the words of one indicating
this.”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“For if this be spoken of
the Godhead there arises a certain contradiction, and many absurdities
are thereby produced. If on the contrary it be spoken of the flesh, the
expressions are reasonable, and no fault can be found with them. For
the unwillingness of the flesh to die incurs no condemnation; such is
the nature of the flesh and He exhibits all the properties of the flesh
except sin, and indeed in full abundance, so as to stop the mouths of
the heretics. When therefore He says ‘If it be possible let this
cup pass from me’ and ‘not as I will but as Thou
wilt,’ He only shews that He is really clothed with the flesh
which fears death, for it is the nature of the flesh to fear death, to
draw back and to suffer agony. Now He leaves it abandoned and stripped
of its own activity, that by shewing its weakness He may convince us
also of its nature. Sometimes however He conceals it, because He was
not mere man.”

Testimony of Severianus, bishop
of Gabala.

From his discourse on the
seals:—

“The Jews withstand the
apparent, ignorant of the non-apparent; they crucify the flesh; they do
not destroy the Godhead. For if my words are not destroyed together
with the letter which is the clothing of speech, how could God the
Word, the fount of life, die together with the flesh? The passion
belongs to the body, but impassibility to the
dignity.”

See then how they whose
husbandry is in the East and in the West, as well as in the South and
in the North, have all been shewn by us to condemn your vain heresy,
and all openly to proclaim the impassibility of the divine Nature. See
how both tongues, I mean both Greek and Latin, make one harmonious
confession about the things of God.

242Eran.—I am myself
astonished at their harmony, but I observe a considerable difference in
the terms they use.

Orth.—Do not be angry. The very force of their fight against
their adversaries is the cause of their seeming immoderate. The same
thing is to be observed in the case of planters; when they see a plant
bent one way or another, they are not satisfied with bringing it to a
straight line, but bend it still further in the opposite direction,
that by its being bent still further from the straight it may attain
its upright stature. But that you may know that the very promoters and
supporters of this manifold heresy strive to surpass even the heretics
of old by the greatness of their blasphemies, listen once more to the
writings of Apollinarius which proclaim the impassibility of the divine
nature, and confess the passion to be of the body.

Testimony of
Apollinarius.

From his
summary:—

“John spoke of the temple
which was destroyed, namely the body of Him that raised it, and the
body is entirely united to Him and He is not another among them. And if
the body of the Lord was one with the Lord, the properties of the body
were constituted His properties on account of the
body.”

And again:—

“And the truth is that His
conjunction with the body does not take place by circumscription of the
Word, so that He has nothing beyond His incorporation. Wherefore even
in death immortality abides with Him; for if He transcends this
composition, so does He also the dissolution. Now death is dissolution.
But He was not comprehended in the composition; had He been so, the
universe would have been made void; nor in the dissolution did He, like
the soul, suffer the deprivation which succeeds
dissolution.”

And again:—

“As the Saviour says that
the dead bodies go forth from their tombs, though their souls do not go
forth thence, just so He says that He Himself will rise from the dead,
although it is only His body that rises.”

In another similar work he
writes:—

“Of man is the rising from
the dead; of God is the raising. Now Christ both rose and raised, for
He was God and man. Had the Christ been only man He would not have
quickened the dead, and if He had been only God, He would not on His
own account apart from the Father have quickened any of the dead. But
Christ did both; the same being is both God and man. If the Christ had
been only man He would not have saved the world; if He had been only
God He would not have saved it through suffering, but Christ did both,
so He is God and man. If the Christ had been only man or if only God He
could not have been a Mediator between men and God.”

And a little further
on:—

“Now flesh is an
instrument of life fitted to the capacity for suffering in accordance
with the divine will. Words are not proper to the Flesh, nor are deeds.
Being made subject to the capacity for suffering, as is natural to the
flesh, it prevails over the suffering because it is the flesh of
God.”

And again a little further
on:—

“The Son took flesh of the
Virgin and travelled to the world. This flesh He filled with the Holy
Ghost to the sanctification of us all. So He delivered death to death
and destroyed death through the resurrection to the raising of us
all.”

From his tract concerning the
faith:—

“Since the passions are
concerned with the flesh His power possessed its own impassibility, so
to refer the passion to the power is an impious
error.”

And in his tract about the
incarnation he further writes:—

“Here then He shews that
it was the same man who rose from the dead and God who reigns over all
creation.”

You see now that one of the
professors of vain heresy plainly preaches the impassibility of the
Godhead, calls the body a temple, and persists in maintaining that this
body was raised by God the Word.

Eran.—I have heard and I am astonished; and I am really ashamed
that our doctrines should appear less tenable than the innovation of
Apollinarius.

Orth.—But I will bring you a witness from yet another heretical
herd distinctly preaching the impassibility of the Godhead of the only
begotten.

Eran.—Whom do you mean?

Orth.—You have probably heard of Eusebius the Phœnician, who
was bishop of Emesa by Lebanon.15651565 Eusebius, bishop of Emesa (now Hems, where Heliogabalus received
the purple, and Aurelian defeated Zenobia) c. 341–359 is called
by Jerome “Signifer Arianæ factionis.” Chron.
sub ann. x Constantii. Theodoret also mentions writings of his against
Apelles (Hær. fab. i. 25.)

Eran.—I have met with some of his writings, and found him to be a
supporter of the doctrines of Arius.

Orth.—Yes; he did belong to that sect, but in his endeavour to
prove that the Father was greater than the only begotten he declares
the Godhead of the depreciated Son to be im243passible and for this opinion
he contended with long and extraordinary perseverance.

Eran.—I should be very much obliged if you would quote his words
too.

Orth.—To comply with your wish I will adduce somewhat longer
evidence. Now listen to what he says, and fancy that the man himself is
addressing us.

Testimony of Eusebius of
Emesa:—

“Wherefore does he fear
death? Lest he suffer anything from death? For what was death to Him?
Was it not the severance of the power from the flesh? Did the power
receive a nail that it should fear? If our soul suffers not the
body’s infirmities when united with it, but the eye grows blind
and yet the mind retains its force; and a foot is cut off and yet the
reasoning power does not halt—and this nature evidences, and the
Lord sets His seal on, in the words ‘Fear not them which kill the
body but are not able to kill the soul’ (and if they cannot kill
the soul, it is not because they do not wish, but because they are not
able, though they would like to make the soul share the suffering of
the body yoked with it)—shall He who created the soul and formed
the body suffer as the body suffers, although He does take upon Himself
the body’s sufferings? But Christ suffered for us, and we lie
not. ‘And the bread that I will give is my flesh.’15661566John vi. 51 This He gave for us.

“That which can be
mastered was mastered; that which can be crucified was crucified, but
He that had power alike to dwell in it and to leave it said
‘Father into thy hands I commend my Spirit,’15671567Luke xxiii.
46 not into the hands of them who were
trying to hasten His death. I am not fond of controversy; I rather
avoid it; with all gentleness I wish to enquire into the points at
issue between us as between brothers. Do not I say truly that the power
could not be subject to the sufferings of the flesh? I say nothing; let
him who will say what the power suffered. Did it fail? See the danger.
Was it extinct? See the blasphemy. Did it no longer exist? This is the
death of power. Tell me what can so master it that it suffered and I
withdraw. But, if you cannot tell me, why do you object to my not
telling you? What you cannot tell me, that it did not receive. Drive a
nail into a soul and I will admit that it can be driven into power. But
it was in sympathy. Tell me what you mean by ‘in sympathy.’
As a nail went into the flesh, so pain into the power. Let us
understand ‘was in sympathy’ in this sense. Then pain was
felt by the power which was not smitten. For pain always follows on
suffering. But if a body often despises pain while the mind is sound,
on account of the vigour of its thought, then in this case let some one
explain impartially what suffered and what suffered with or was in
sympathy. What then? Did not Christ die for us? How did He die?
‘Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit.’15681568Luke xxiii.
46 The Spirit departed; the body remained;
the body remained without breath. Did He not die then? He died for us.
The Shepherd offered the sheep, the Priest offered the sacrifice, He
gave Himself for us. ‘He that spared not His own Son but
delivered Him up for us all.’15691569Romans viii.
32 I do not
reject the words, but I want the meaning of the words. The Lord says
that the bread of God came down from Heaven,15701570John vi. 51
and though I cannot express it more clearly on account of the
mysteries, He says in explanation ‘It is my flesh.’ Did the
flesh of the Son come down from heaven? No. How then does He say, and
that in explanation, the bread of God lives and came down from Heaven?
He refers the properties of the power to the flesh, because the power
which assumed the flesh came down from heaven. Change the terms then;
He refers to the power what the flesh suffers. How did Christ suffer
for us? He was spat upon, He was smitten on the cheek, they put a crown
about His brow, His hands and feet were pierced. All these sufferings
were of the body, but they are referred to Him that dwelt therein.
Throw a stone at the Emperor’s statue. What is the cry?
‘You have insulted the Emperor.’ Tear the Emperor’s
robe. What is the cry? ‘You have rebelled against the
Emperor.’ Crucify Christ’s body. What is the cry?
‘Christ died for us.’ But what need of me and thee? Let us
go to the Evangelists. How have you received from the Lord how the Lord
died? They read ‘Father into thy hands I commend my
Spirit.’15711571Luke xxiii.
46 The Spirit on
high, the body on the Cross for us. So far as His body is attributed to
Himself He offered the sheep.”

Of the same from the same
book:—

“He came to save our
nature; not to destroy His own. If I consent to say that a camel flies,
you directly count it strange, because it does not fit in with its
nature; and you are quite right. And if I say that men live in the sea
you will not accept it; you are quite right. It is contrary to nature.
As then if I say strange things about these 244natures you count it strange;
if I say that the Power which was before the ages, by nature
incorporeal, in dignity impassible, which exists with the Father and by
the Father’s side, on His right hand and in glory, if I say that
this incorporeal nature suffers, will you not stop your ears? If you
will not stop your ears when you hear this, I shall stop my heart. Can
we do anything to an angel? Smite him with a sword? Or cut him in
pieces? Why do I say to an angel? Can we to a soul? Does a soul receive
a nail? A soul is neither cut nor burnt. Do you ask why? Because it was
so created. Are His works impassible and He Himself passible? I do not
reject the œconomy; on the contrary, I welcome the ill-treatment.
Christ died for us and was crucified. So it is written; so the nature
admitted. I do not blot out the words nor do I blaspheme the nature.
But this is not true. Very well, then let something truer be said. The
teacher is a benefactor, never harsh, never an enemy, unless the pupil
be headstrong. Have you anything good to say? My ears are gratefully
open. Does any one want to quarrel? Let him quarrel at his leisure.
Could the Jews crucify the Son of God and make the power itself a dead
body? Can the living die? The death of this power is its failure. Even
when we die, our body is left. But if we make that power a dead body we
reduce it to non-existence. I am afraid you cannot hear. If the body
die, the soul is separated from it and remains; but if the soul die,
since it has no body, it altogether ceases to exist. A soul by dying
altogether ceases to be. For the death of the immortals is a
contradiction of their existence. Consider the alternative; for I do
not dare even to mention it. We say these things as we understand them,
but if any one is contentions, we lay down no law. But I know one
thing, that every man must reap the fruit of his opinions. Each man
comes to God and brings before Him what he has said and thought about
Him. Do not suppose that God reads books, or is troubled by having to
recollect what you said or who heard you: all is made manifest. The
judge is on the throne. Paulus15721572 i.e. Paul of Samosata. is brought
before Him. ‘Thou saidst I was a man; thou hast no life with Me.
Thou knewest not Me; I know not thee.’ Up comes another.
‘Thou saidst I was one of the things that are created.15731573τῶν ὄντων
in the original; lit: of the things that are, which
might have an orthodox interpretation, tho’ strictly speaking
there is no such thing as “τὸ ὄν;” there
is only “ὁ ὤν,” i.e.
God. But Schulze is no doubt right in explaining τῶν ὄντων
here to refer to created things. Thou knewest not My dignity; I know not
thee.’ Up comes another. ‘Thou saidst that I did not assume
a body. Thou madest light of My grace. Thou shalt not share My
immortality.’ Up comes another. ‘Thou saidst that I was not
born of a Virgin to save the body of the Virgin; thou shalt not be
saved.’ Each one reaps the fruit of his opinions about the
faith.”

You see the other sect of your
teachers, in which you supposed that you had learnt the suffering of
the Godhead of the only Begotten, abhors this blasphemy, preaches the
impassibility of the Godhead, and quits the ranks of them who dare to
attribute the passion to it.

Eran.—Yes; I am astonished at the conflict, and I admire the
man’s sense and opinions.

Orth.—Then, my good Sir, imitate the bees. As you flit in mental
flight about the meads of the divine Scripture, among the fair flowers
of these illustrious Fathers, build us in your heart the honey-comb of
the faith. If haply you find anywhere herbage bitter and not fit to
eat, like these fellows Apollinarius and Eusebius, but still not quite
without something that may be meet for making honey, it is reasonable
that you should sip the sweet and leave the poisonous behind, like bees
who lighting often on baneful bushes leave all the deadly bane behind
and gather all the good. We give you this advice, dear friend, in
brotherly kindness. Receive it and you will do well. And if you hearken
not we will say to you in the word of the apostle “We are
pure.”15741574Acts xx. 26 We have spoken, as the prophet
says, what we have been commanded.

1414 The
vena cava, by which the blood returns to the heart. The
physiology of Eranistes would be held in the main
“orthodox” even now, and shews that Theodoret was well
abreast of the science accepted before the discovery of the circulation
of the blood.

1421 Cf.
note on Page 37. From the middle of the IIIrd century onward we find
acceptation of the Pauline authorship. Among writers who quote the Ep.
as St. Paul’s are Cyril of Jerusalem, the two Gregories, Basil,
and Chrysostom, as well as Theodoret.

1438 The text of John iv. 6
is κεκοπιακὼς
ἐκαθέζετο, i.e., after being weary sate down. κοπιῶν
ἐκαθέζετο would = “while being weary sate down.” The force
of the passage seems to be that Scripture states our Lord to have been
wearied once,—not to be wearied now; though of course in
classical Greek λέγει (historicè) αὐτὸν
κοπιᾶν might
mean “said that he was in a state of weariness.”

1444 “The Machpelah,” always in Hebrew with the
article הַטַּכְפֵלה
= “the double (cave).” It is interesting to
contrast the heathen idea, that the shadow goes to Hades while the self
is identified with the body, with the Christian belief, that the self
lives while the body is buried e.g. Homer (Il. i. 4) says that while
the famous “wrath” sent many heroes’ souls to Hades,
it made “them” a prey to dogs and birds. cf. xxiii.
72. “ψυχαὶ
εἰδωλα
καμόντων.”

1456 The
sacrifice of Isaac so far as his father’s part in it is concerned
is regarded as having actually taken place at the moment of his felt
willingness to obey. In the interval of the journey to Mount Moriah
Isaac is dead to his father.

1459 It
is to be noted that Theodoret thus apparently regards the divine image
as consisting in the intelligence or λόγος. And in
the implication that Isaac had the divine image, he expresses the
Scriptural view that this was marred, not lost, by the fall.

1521 cf. Luke xxiv. 39. And for the
application of these words to St. Thomas cf. page 210.

1522 The
effusion of water and blood is now well known to have been a natural
consequence of the “broken heart.” On the rupture of the
heart the blood fills the pericardium, and then coagulates. The wound
of the lance gave passage to the collected blood and serum. cf. Dr.
Stroud’s “Physical Cause of the Death of
Christ,” first published in 1847.

1573τῶν ὄντων
in the original; lit: of the things that are, which
might have an orthodox interpretation, tho’ strictly speaking
there is no such thing as “τὸ ὄν;” there
is only “ὁ ὤν,” i.e.
God. But Schulze is no doubt right in explaining τῶν ὄντων
here to refer to created things.